U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–309PDF 2005

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS: BUDGET AND

MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES

BRIEFING AND HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 19, 2005

Serial No. 109–94

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

RENEE AUSTELL, Professional Staff Member 

JEAN CARROLL, Full Committee Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

BRIEFER 

Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, Chief of Staff to the Secretary-General, United 

Nations .................................................................................................................. 7

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE BRIEFING 

Mr. Mark Malloch Brown: Prepared statement .................................................... 9

HEARING WITNESSES 

Mark P. Lagon, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International 

Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................................... 106

Ms. Catherine Bertini, former Under Secretary-General for Management, 

United Nations, 2003–2005 ................................................................................. 152

The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth, President, UN Foundation ............................ 158

Natan Sharansky, Author, ‘‘The Case for Democracy’’ ......................................... 174

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mark P. Lagon, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 109

Ms. Catherine Bertini: Prepared statement .......................................................... 154

The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth: Prepared statement ....................................... 160

(1)

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS: BUDGET 

AND MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. The subject 

of today’s briefing and hearing is reform of the United Nations. 

Many regard the word ‘‘reform’’ used in relation to the UN with 

suspicion, viewing it as a vehicle by which the United States can 

surreptitiously inflict intentional damage on an institution unpopular with the American people. But those who would claim an American antipathy to the United Nations are unfamiliar with the history of the organization. 

The United States was the originator of the idea of the United 

Nations and its birth parent, as it had been decades before with 

the League of Nations. When the U.S. set out to remake the international system at the end of World War II, it focused much of its 

energy and overwhelming strength on establishing the United Nations, spending time and resources to persuade allies, enemies, and 

others to sign on to this new and hopeful vision of how the world 

could work. And through the decades, despite disagreements large 

and small, we have been the organization’s principal funder and its 

steady partner. Our criticism has stemmed not from a reflexive opposition but from repeated disappointment at the UN’s inability or 

refusal to live up to our high expectations. 

No one is opposed to the UN’s role in facilitating diplomacy, mediating disputes, monitoring the peace, feeding the hungry. But we 

are opposed to legendary bureaucratization, to political grandstanding, to billions of dollars spent on multitudes of programs with 

meager results, and to the outright misappropriation of funds represented by the emerging scandal regarding the Oil-for-Food Program. And we rightly bristle at the gratuitous anti-Americanism 

that has become ingrained over decades. 

No observer, be they passionate supporter or dismissive critic, 

can pretend that the current structure and operations of the UN 

represent an acceptable standard. Even the United Nations itself 

has acknowledged the need for reform and, to its credit, has put 

forward a number of useful proposals for consideration. But it cannot be expected to shoulder this burden alone and none who care 

about the UN would want it to. 

2

The desire for change is a bipartisan one. Republican and Democratic Administrations alike have long called for a more focused 

and accountable budget, one that reflects what should be the true 

priorities of the organization, shorn of duplicative, ineffective, and 

outdated programs. Members on both sides of the aisle in Congress 

agree that the time has come for far-reaching reforms. 

Our efforts must address a wide range of activities, including 

budget priorities and the sprawling array of programs, personnel 

issues, and management reform, to name but the largest subjects. 

I could recite a litany of examples of problems that must be addressed, but I will offer only one, namely that, while the United 

Nations Public Information Office employs 754 individuals, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has 450. 

The task we face is an extensive one and I have no illusions regarding the difficulties and challenges we face. This Committee will 

soon take up legislation that will outline U.S. goals and the actions 

needed to accomplish them, legislation that I am confident will 

enjoy wide, bipartisan support. I am certain that we shall receive 

it from all who wish the United Nations to become the institution 

it was intended to be and to fulfill the mission envisioned by its 

founders. 

I now yield to my friend, the Ranking Democratic Member of this 

Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

commend you for calling this important hearing and I want to commend you on your very thoughtful introductory observations. 

Mr. Chairman, the way the United Nations works or fails to 

work has been subject to an unprecedented level of scrutiny in the 

past year after the revelations of widespread corruption involving 

the flawed Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq. This intense scrutiny has 

yielded a steady stream of sickening tales of sex abuse, kickbacks, 

bribery, embezzlement, influence peddling, document shredding 

and almost every other form of malfeasance imaginable. 

The flood of stories of scandal has forced long overdue recognition 

of an essential fact about the United Nations. It is a derivative reality reflecting its less than perfect member states in a deeply 

flawed world. It is not an independent reality, but it reflects the 

singularly imperfect world with all its shortcomings, injustices, absurdities, corruptions, cruelties, hypocrisies, and tragedies. 

While I strongly endorse a joint effort to roll up our sleeves and 

develop structural and procedural changes in UN management, I 

urge all of my colleagues to keep in mind that there is no quick 

fix for an organization composed of 191 member states that in 

varying degrees have their own shortcomings, injustices, flaws, and 

hypocrisies of all times. 

Mr. Chairman, until the day arrives when the clear majority of 

United Nations member states assume their international responsibilities and represent democratic values, the United States will 

have to press this imperfect yet ultimately necessary organization 

to be accountable, transparent, ethical, and professional in undertaking the critical duties it needs to perform. 

It is my hope that our current effort to urge the United Nations 

to reform its management and structure does not fail to encompass 

a full bore effort to eradicate the most glaring and sickening defiVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
3

ciency of the organization, its pathological persecution of one member state, the democratic Nation of Israel. Israel’s performance and 

standards are vastly superior to that of most of its non-democratic 

detractors. 

America’s UN diplomacy, especially under the leadership of our 

Ambassadors Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick, 

mounted an occasional full scale offensive against the outrageous 

and insidious attacks on the democratic State of Israel. A renewed 

spasm of anti-Israeli activism has polluted critical UN mechanisms, such as the General Assembly and the so-called Commission 

on Human Rights. 

Mr. Chairman, I witnessed first hand as some Arab and Islamic 

countries launched a campaign of hate at the disastrous 2001 

World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. Only 

days before the tragic events of 9/11, a sinister coalition of Arab 

and Islamic countries turned the Durban gathering into a hatefilled orgy of unabashed anti-Semitism, causing a United States 

walkout, which I had the privilege of leading. 

Mr. Chairman, it is time once and for all for our diplomats to 

apply themselves in a sustained way to defeating the absurd series 

of anti-Israeli resolutions that continue to crowd the UN agenda, 

pushing aside long overdue considerations of critical issues such as 

AIDS, terrorism, climate change, poverty, human rights abuses, 

and famine. 

Mr. Chairman, your statement indicates that, as always, we 

share many common views, and I look forward to working with you 

on the comprehensive legislative package you are in the process of 

putting together to address the most glaring shortcomings of the 

United Nations. I am also very pleased that you plan to include in 

your legislation a mandate in line with Secretary-General Kofi 

Annan’s bold proposal to scrap the UN’s current disgraceful and 

laughable Human Rights Commission in favor of a smaller and serious Human Rights Council, explicitly designed to exclude human 

rights violators from its membership. 

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I on the Democratic side of the 

aisle are prepared to work with you on a bipartisan package of 

mandated reforms. My main caution, as we move forward in this 

process, is that it will be very important for us to resist the powerful temptation to withhold the payment of our dues in an attempt 

to leverage needed changes at the United Nations. As we all know, 

Mr. Chairman, the United States recently completed a multi-year 

process of paying off a massive debt to the United Nations that accumulated over many years. During that process, we successfully 

reduced the percentage of the UN budget that U.S. taxpayers are 

responsible for funding. 

Mr. Chairman, at a time when our own national debt is climbing 

at an alarming rate, do we really want to create another big debt 

to the UN that eventually will have to be paid? Refusing to pay 

dues in order to force reform violates our international obligations 

and makes a mockery of the doctrine of accountability and ethical 

conduct that we are pressing upon the United Nations. 

We live in a world characterized by global problems such as 

failed states, terrorism, famine, and climate change that require 

global solutions. As much as some of us might like it to be so, no 

4

nation, not even the United States, is powerful enough to confront 

all of these challenges on its own. If an overarching international 

organization did not already exist to deal with these problems, we 

would have to invent it. 

The United Nations, despite all of its flaws, has been indispensable in addressing many global threats. Through the critical work 

of its affiliated organization, including the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, UNESCO, the UN Development Program, 

the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program, 

the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and others. It is 

worth our remembering, Mr. Chairman, that just in the past year, 

the United Nations supervised a first ever national election from 

scratch in Afghanistan and trained some 150,000 election staff in 

Iraq. The UN also coordinated a massive tsunami relief and reconstruction effort involving many governments and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The United Nations is helping 

stabilize Haiti, Sierra Leone, and Liberia and it has mediated the 

withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon after decades of occupation. 

Mr. Chairman, today we are privileged to hear from the Secretary-General’s Chief of Staff, a singularly able international public servant and the distinguished head of the former UN Development Program, to detail for us the massive and comprehensive reform plan that Kofi Annan is attempting to implement in New 

York. We also have the opportunity to hear the Administration’s 

point of view from Mr. Lagon, in addition to two distinguished nongovernmental witnesses, Catherine Bertini, and our distinguished 

former colleague, Senator Tim Wirth, who heads the United Nations Foundation. 

I know we all look forward to their testimony as we undertake 

the complex and overdue task of reforming the United Nations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. The Chair will entertain 1-minute statements from those that are so disposed to make 

them, and so I recognize Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all I 

want to just acknowledge and thank you, in working very closely 

with you on UN reform. My Subcommittee, Africa, Global Human 

Rights and International Operations, has now held a number of 

hearings focused on at least two of the main areas that need to be 

reformed. The human rights structures, which regrettably the 

Human Rights Commission in the past has been a magnet for 

rogue nations to run interference to holding countries to account 

for their human rights abuses. There are some very serious ideas 

that are being put forward to reform and replace that egregiously 

flawed process. I think the sooner we embrace that, the better. 

We are also looking at a top to bottom review of United Nations 

peacekeeping, with a special emphasis on ensuring that peacekeepers do not engage in any way, shape or form with the exploitation of the local population, especially young girls as we saw in 

the Congo, where 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds were raped. I am happy 

to say that the UN and Jane Holl Lute—who did testify on behalf 

of the United Nations and is doing, I think, a magnificent job—are 

5

trying to make sure that real reform is put into effect so that those 

who commit these kinds of crimes are held to account. 

And then, of course, transparency, IGs——

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 

offer my personal welcome to a distinguished and former colleague 

and certainly, as the President of the United Nations Foundation, 

former Senator Tim Wirth, who is with us, and my personal welcome to the Chief of Staff of the Secretary-General. 

I want to elaborate a little further while I have my 5 minutes 

to discuss a very serious issue, Mr. Chairman. I do not expect any 

response from Mr. Brown, but basically on the issue of West 

Papua, New Guinea. I look forward to discussing this and 

dialoguing with Mr. Brown at an appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this 

minute. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to echo 

the sentiments of my colleagues, we would like to see so much reform in the United Nations, including an end of secret voting, more 

transparency, reforming the unbelievable Commission on Human 

Rights, which is anything but. It has become a place where the 

most horrific human rights abusers become a member of the Commission so that they can protect themselves from being sanctioned. 

And to do away with the anti-Israel bias that seems to be part of 

the institutional culture. 

We look forward to hearing further about Secretary-General 

Annan’s plan to reform the institution, but as you know, we will 

have our own plan, as well, that is a bit more aggressive about 

what needs to be done in order to give this valuable institution 

more credibility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. For better than 

a year, this Committee and several other House and Senate Committees have been investigating the United Nations in discussing 

the need for reform with a particular focus on the Oil-for-Food Program. And during this time, I have been posing a question that I 

believe still remains unanswered. And maybe I can elicit an answer 

from someone here today. 

According to the Duelfer report, the Iraqi tyrant received some $12 billion in elicit oil revenue during the sanctions regime, but 

only about 15 percent of that amount was derived from manipulation of the Oil-for-Food Program. So while the focus has been on 

the mismanagement issue surrounding the Oil-for-Food Program, 

three-fourths of the illegal dollars that went to Saddam Hussein 

were derived from so-called trade protocols with Jordan, Turkey, 

Egypt, and Syria. 

It is indisputable that these trade protocols were illegal under 

the sanction regime that was imposed in the aftermath of the first 

Gulf War. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

6

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what the question will be. Can somebody please explain this to me? 

Chairman HYDE. You are tipping your hand. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Flake of Arizona. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

Chairman for calling this hearing. I respect the views of the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Lantos, with regard to tying funding to 

reform. I would suggest that sometimes that is the only option we 

have and we cannot take that off the table. It is very much on the 

table. There is legislation pending that I and others have sponsored 

that does tie funding to reform, so I am anxious to hear about the 

reform that is planned. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. If there are no more requests for an opening 

statement—is there? Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, and Mr. Delahunt is the Ranking Member in the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation and we 

will be calling Madeleine Albright and others of the Clinton Administration who began the program that he is talking about. 

The United Nations has not lived up to the dream reform, fundamental reform has called for. The question is whether the current 

leadership of the United Nations is going to be part of the solution 

or part of the problem. As we move forward with this investigation 

into the Oil-for-Food scandal, I am not so certain what exactly the 

leadership of the United Nations has decided, whether they are 

going to be part of the solution or part of the problem. But we 

know one thing. We are insisting that they are not above the law. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. McCotter of Michigan. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I appreciate the 

comments of you and the Ranking Member. It is a joy to listen to 

both of you. I think the question in the minds of many people is 

going to be: Are we to continue paying dues to an organization that 

has continued to engage in the practice of corruption which has betrayed its mission? I think that what we have to look at also is the 

fact that yes, it is a derivative reality, but we must continue to look 

at the deplorable venality of the bureaucracy that has run it in 

order to make that determination. 

Chairman HYDE. Today’s hearing is temporarily suspended and 

we will proceed with a briefing by Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, Chief 

of Staff to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. After Mr. 

Malloch Brown’s briefing is concluded, we will resume the hearing. 

Mr. Malloch Brown was appointed in January 2005 by SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan to serve as his Chief of Staff. In this capacity, 

he assists the Secretary-General in initiatives to improve the performance and overhaul the management of the United Nations. Mr. 

Malloch Brown continues to serve as Administrator of the United 

Nations Development Program, a position he has held since July 

1999. He also serves as Chair of the United Nations Development 

Group, a committee consisting of the heads of all UN funds, programs, and departments working on development issues. 

Mr. Malloch Brown. 

7

STATEMENT BY MR. MARK MALLOCH BROWN, CHIEF OF 

STAFF TO THE SECRETARY–GENERAL, UNITED NATIONS 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman Hyde and the 

other distinguished Members of the Committee. And I am very 

pleased to be with you today. And I apologize that as a non-American citizen working for the UN, it has to be in this briefing format 

rather than a hearing, but I am sure you know that means no disrespect to this Committee. I hope I can speak as truthfully and 

honestly and fully to you as I would if I were under oath. 

You have been gracious enough to introduce me, so I will not repeat my biography. You have also been kind enough to your staff 

to agree to, I understand, put the written testimony and its attachments into the proceedings, which allows me to speak more informally to you. 

UNDP, the organization that, as you mentioned, I have been 

leading now for almost 6 years, is actually in many ways almost 

as big an organization as the Secretary-General’s UN Secretariat. 

It operates all over the world and I have been lucky enough with 

my colleagues to see very clearly that UN reform is possible. We 

have almost doubled the resources in the last 5 years. We have 

built an organization of deeply committed and professional people 

from all over the world, working very effectively on development 

and particularly on the promotion of democracy and rebuilding 

failed states. 

And one of our strongest allies in that process of rebuilding 

UNDP and focusing it in this way has been the United States. It 

has been a great promoter of that vision, a great supporter of me, 

at every step of that process. So I am extremely conscious that: (1) 

reform of the UN is possible—I have some experience of it; and 

that (2) the United States is the indispensable partner in such reform. I could not have done what I did at UNDP if it had not been 

for that strong American leadership and partnership. 

So I welcome very, very strongly these hearings and your focus, 

Mr. Chairman, on UN reform. I very much hope that the kind of 

partnership I saw between the United States and UNDP is 

replicable here for the UN itself. 

The Secretary-General shares that view. I think nobody takes 

more deeply or personally the failings that the Oil-for-Food scandal 

have exposed in the management system of the UN and that the 

Volcker panel and your own congressional probes have dwelt on. 

He recognizes very, very clearly that the system of management 

oversight has demonstrated fundamental weaknesses that we do 

not have adequate audit arrangements and that they need to be 

strengthened. That the financial disclosure rules for senior officials 

are not sufficient, that we do not have, as yet, adequate whistle 

blowing arrangements to insure that any staff member who volunteers information about misdoings in the organization will be protected from unfair recriminations. 

So on these and many other management issues, we are already 

moving full steam to get them fixed. The Deputy Secretary-General 

leads a reform initiative for the Secretary-General which is focusing on these and many other related issues. 

We also, I think, are struggling with frankly one of the most difficult issues, which is that this is an organization where trust in 

8

management has frayed amongst many in the staff. And yet the 

staff themselves are protected by an outdated set of rules and internal justice arrangements, which give them a much higher degree 

of job entitlement and job protection than is appropriate for an organization with a changing mission and changing staff needs. 

And perhaps most dramatically within this issue of strengthened 

staff management relations comes the terrible tragedy of sexual exploitation that has been exposed in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo, but where we are also now investigating other incidents in 

Liberia and Haiti. But I want to move to perhaps drawing a slightly different conclusion from this than many of you would conclude. 

I know it is easy to say that this shows we should cut back on 

peacekeeping. I draw rather the different conclusion as I do on 

quite a few reform issues, that if there is something that we agree 

the UN needs to do, let us fund it to do it right. And peacekeeping 

is a classic example of the costs of trying to do it on the cheap. 

The UN is running 18 peacekeeping operations around the world at a cost of $4.5 billion, at just half a percent of world defense expenditures. And when you look at it in unit cost terms, it has been 

done at a much lower cost than the United States or my own country, Britain, spends on similar pacification and peacekeeping operations. And the costs of doing it on the cheap are pretty clear. The 

different troop contributors do not accept the uniform system of 

justice, with justice on the spot against delinquent offenders, 

against sexual exploitation and other issues. We are getting that 

changed. We cannot afford to put enough military police into these 

operations to make sure the troops stay off the streets and out of 

the bars when they are off duty. We do not invest enough in rest 

and relaxation facilities, let alone rotating troops out frequently 

enough to make sure that we have the incentives as well as the 

disciplines to prevent the behaviors that Mr. Smith rightly draws 

attention to. 

So we have a lot to get fixed, but cutting budgets is not the solution for the priorities. You mentioned human rights and I would 

give that as another example where creating a smaller, more focused Human Rights Council, renewing the machinery, as so many 

of you have called for, is critical, but you will not do it for less 

costs. You have to invest in it. 

So my argument to you is, let us agree what we think the UN 

should do and then give it the means, give its leadership, the Secretary-General, the authority to get it done right. 

And hence to a final point, if I may, in this introduction about 

withholding. One hundred and ninety-one members are discussing 

reform at the UN at the moment, responding to the Secretary-General’s argument that the long term reform should focus the UN behind three clear priorities: Development, security, and human 

rights. And that is an enormously exciting ambition for the organization to reconnect it with the kind of priorities that not just your 

constituents have, but people everywhere have, from Cambodia to 

Africa, you name it. These are the things people want from the UN. 

But to build that kind of capacity around those three priorities, 

the U.S. cannot do it alone. You have to negotiate with your allies 

at the UN to put a majority together for these reform proposals. 

And there is so much common ground between you and others. My 

9

plea to you would be not to jeopardize it by acting alone. Act with 

your partners at the UN and let us make these exciting new ideas, 

like a Human Rights Council, happen. Let us work together to banish once and forever the traces of anti-Semitism in the organization. It is a terribly damaging thing which I feel we have made 

huge strides on, but it only comes when we can work together as 

a progressive reformist block inside the organization. 

So thank you for your interest in reform, but my plea to you is 

not to jeopardize our common vision of an effective UN by acting 

alone. Act with your friends in New York. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. MARK MALLOCH BROWN, CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE

SECRETARY-GENERAL, UNITED NATIONS

Chairman Hyde, 

Distinguished members of the Committee, 

I am honoured to be here today to discuss with you issues of mutual interest concerning the United Nations. 

Allow me to introduce myself: I am the Chief of Staff of the Secretary-General 

of the United Nations. I took office at the beginning of January this year, after serving for more than five years as Administrator of the United Nations Development 

Programme—a position I will give up when my successor arrives this summer. 

When, in circumstances of crisis, the Secretary-General brought me into his team 

five months ago, he made it clear that he was looking to me to work with him and 

the Deputy Secretary-General to help advance a serious and ambitious agenda for 

reform of the United Nations. That is the agenda that has brought me here today. 

And I am very glad that it has. Let me be clear: we in the United Nations Secretariat are acutely aware of the reform issues raised by events of recent months—

by the troubling revelations on oil-for-food, the related findings of the Volcker panel, 

your own Congressional probes, and reports of sexual exploitation and abuse in 

some of our peacekeeping operations. 

We know that while we have made enormous strides over the past few years in 

many operational areas—from building better-functioning country teams for development, to creating the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which 

led the response to the recent tsunami disaster—we have some real issues of audit 

oversight, management accountability, financial disclosure and general performance 

that we urgently need to get right. 

And while the UN has seen more reform under Secretary-General Kofi Annan 

than under any of his predecessors, he welcomes the fact that you are as intent as 

he is to ensure that the United Nations is the most effective instrument it can be, 

in the interests of the people it exists to serve. There are many other countries 

around the world—some of them also large contributors—who have the same commitment to UN reform. I encourage you to make common cause with them. 

The shared objective before us, then, is adapting the United Nations to the needs 

of the 21st century. 

That means nothing less than a transformation of the United Nations—a transformation that is already underway: taking it from a conference-organizing, reportwriting Organization, to one equipped to undertake large, complex, global missions—from peacekeeping and peacebuilding in post-conflict societies to humanitarian relief, recovery and rehabilitation following disasters such as the tsunami. 

The Secretary-General’s reform proposals call for a UN organized behind three 

priorities: development, security and human rights. It is an action-oriented UN, responding to what citizens everywhere—from Peoria to Phnom Penh, from Luanda 

to London—want from today’s United Nations: a principled, problem-solving, actionoriented body that works with Governments to fix problems that need fixing. 

To get there, we see three phases of reform: 

First, there are immediate management reforms which we are already undertaking—as described in the fact sheet provided as part of my written briefing, with 

specific timelines for completion. These include measures to improve the performance of senior management; enhance oversight and accountability; ensure ethical 

conduct, and increase transparency, including more rigorous financial disclosures by 

senior officials. 

Among other things, that means measures to better protect whistleblowers, so 

that staff feel free to come forward with their concerns, confident that they will be 

10

protected against retribution; and a host of concrete steps to stamp out the heinous 

acts of sexual exploitation and abuse which have inflicted such wounds on our field 

operations. 

We have also asked Member States to conduct a comprehensive review to 

strengthen of our Office of Internal Oversight Services. In the meantime, OIOS reports are now available to Member States, while we are seeking immediate and significant increases in resources for investigations. 

In other words, Mr. Chairman, transparency and accountability are the watchwords for the United Nations in the new century. The Volcker inquiry is a case in 

point. As Mr. Volcker himself has said, ‘‘few institutions have freely subjected themselves to the intensity of scrutiny entailed in the Committee’s work . . . I don’t 

know of any other institution that has been scrubbed quite as hard as this one.’’

Second, we envisage a number of systemic measures, targeted at disentangling 

the gridlock at the centre of staff-management relations: frayed trust in management, together with a lot of entrenched employment rights that block staff turnover, 

new recruitment and promotions on merit where needed. This leads to a real difficulty in making change work. We need to tackle the policies, the culture and the 

institutional set-up that have bred this deadlocked workplace. 

And third, we are advocating a longer-term agenda, as described in the SecretaryGeneral’s report, In Larger Freedom. That agenda, which will require the approval 

of Member States, encompasses a much larger set of fundamental changes than I 

can cover fully today. 

Under that agenda, the Secretary-General has proposed reform of all the major 

organs of the United Nations—to build a better, more representative Security Council, a new, much-needed Human Rights Council, and a reformed Economic and Social Council to track and promote progress towards our shared goal of halving global 

poverty by 2015. 

The Secretary-General has asked Member States to conduct a comprehensive review of all UN mandates more than five years old, to ascertain if they are still 

meaningful, or if resources could be better spent elsewhere. We cannot strengthen 

new areas such as peacemaking, peacebuilding, humanitarian action and human 

rights if we do not prune elsewhere. If we are to undertake new tasks to address 

emerging priorities, we must be prepared to end others that no longer serve real 

purposes. 

And he has asked for the authority and resources to pursue a one-time staff 

buyout, carefully calibrated and managed to realign our staff profile with today’s realities. 

Mr. Chairman, 

If we agree on the symptoms, however, we may disagree on some fundamental 

aspects of the diagnosis: for me, the United Nations is not oversized, over-resourced, 

or under-supervised by its Member States. 

Rather, from where I sit, the United Nations is currently stretched too thin, in 

both material and human resources, to be able to do the job that people and Governments around the world want it to do—and have a right to expect it to do. 

Let me take one example—sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. This 

is clearly a terrible and shameful blot on UN peacekeeping. As I said earlier, we 

are taking a number of steps to wipe it out and to ensure that these actions do not 

go unpunished. But when we look into what happened, we find national contingents 

of troop-contributing countries often not accepting the results of some investigations 

conducted by the UN; weak or malfunctioning judicial systems in the mission area; 

inadequate military police to keep troops off the streets and out of the bars; and 

no real investment in recreation and welfare arrangements. 

That is not surprising, perhaps, when you consider that the UN is conducting 18 

peacekeeping operations around the world, involving almost 67,000 uniformed personnel, on a budget of four and a half billion dollars. That budget is equivalent to 

less than half of one per cent of the world’s military spending—and means a unit 

cost for peacekeeping that is a fraction of that spent by the US and UK in comparable operations. It’s a bargain—but perhaps too much of one. 

So while there is in some quarters an understandable temptation to respond to 

UN failures by threatening to cut peacekeeping or other contributions, I would 

argue that what is really needed, for a long-term, sustainable solution, is for the 

United States and fellow Member States to agree what they want the UN to do: 

then fund it properly to allow the UN to do the task well. 

I would also argue that just as the United Nations is under-funded, so is it in 

some ways over-supervised. In many areas—most notably personnel decisions—it 

suffers from a bewildering array of inter-governmental constraints that often 

amount to micromanagement. The Secretary-General has less autonomy to move resources from one department to another than the heads of some US Government 

11

agencies. As head of UNDP, reporting to an Executive Board of Member States, I 

had much more autonomy—but also, much more accountability for results—than the 

Secretary-General in the Secretariat, who is mired in a web of Governmental committees and outdated rules that impede his freedom to manage. 

At the heart of our reform agenda, then, is the organizing idea of how a SecretaryGeneral can be given back the power to manage, while at the same time Governments recover the strategic tools to ensure accountability for results. 

Mr. Chairman, 

To paraphrase the words of a distinguished American, I hope these hearings are 

laying the groundwork for a US–UN relationship where your Committee can help 

the United States Government make the United Nations an institution ‘‘when right, 

to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.’’ I hope we can work together to carry 

out that mission. 

Thank you very much. 

Appendixes: 

1. UN Management reforms: 2005

2. Report of the Secretary-General—In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all 

APPENDIX

UN MANAGEMENT REFORMS: 2005

MANAGEMENT REFORM MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN ACCOUNTABILITY, ETHICAL

CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE

The importance of effective multilateralism and the unique role of the United Nations in development, security and human rights is reaffirmed in the Secretary-General’s ‘‘In Larger Freedom’’ report submitted to the General Assembly in March. 

That report includes broad proposals to accelerate management reform of the Secretariat to make it more flexible, transparent, accountable and equipped to deal with 

the needs and challenges of the 21st Century. These measures are part of a longerterm series of reforms launched in 1997 and reinforced in particular with three 

packages of change initiatives since then: namely, the Brahimi report on UN peace 

operations, the 2002 Agenda for Further Change and last year’s overhaul of the 

staff security system. 

The current phase of reform comes at a particularly crucial time for the UN. The 

Secretariat has faced an unprecedented series of organizational challenges which 

have exposed flaws in the way it does business. As a result, the UN must take real 

action now where it is in the Secretary-General’s authority to do so directly, particularly in the critical areas of management, oversight and accountability. The reform 

initiatives summarized below are already underway and most will be fully implemented within the next few months, with the exception of those that require Member States approval. While the preparation for many of the steps predates the problems revealed over the past year, the initiatives also explicitly seek to address both 

the serious concerns expressed by UN staff in last year’s Integrity Perception Survey, and the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry Committee led by Paul 

Volcker into the Oil-for-Food Programme. 

I. Improving the Performance of Senior Management 

A series of steps are being taken to streamline and improve the decision-making 

processes of the Secretariat, open up the recruitment process and enhance training 

and development of senior officials.

• Introduction of executive-level decision-making committees 

The existing Senior Management Group, established in 1997 and comprising 

all Heads of Secretariat Departments and UN Offices, Funds and Programmes, has improved coordination and coherence within the UN family. In 

practice, however, while having real utility as an information-sharing body, 

it has proved too large for effective and timely decision-making. As a result, 

two new, senior committees chaired by the Secretary-General—one dealing 

with Policy issues and the other on Management—have been created to enhance the quality and speed of top-level decision-making. The modus operandi of these committees will ensure clear, action-oriented outcomes with 

better definition of responsibility areas and timelines for implementation.

12

Status: The Policy Committee had its initial meeting May 3 and will now 

meet weekly. The first meeting of the Management Committee will take place 

before the end of May and it will thereafter meet monthly.

• Selection system for senior officials 

Historically, the selection process for senior UN officials has been opaque and 

not sufficiently focused on the growing needs for management as well as political expertise in candidates. To address this, a transparent new selection 

system has been introduced to ensure a much wider search for qualified candidates and a rigorous, open selection process against pre-determined criteria 

for all new heads of UN Funds and Programmes. This will help build a new 

generation of UN senior leaders, recruited on the basis of merit and a proven 

combination of substantive, political, managerial and leadership skills. The 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) is also developing new criteria for the appointments of its senior-level field managers.

Status: The first high-level appointments made using the system—new heads 

of the United Nations Development Programme and the Office of Internal 

Oversight Services—were announced in April. A UN High Commissioner for 

Refugees will also be announced in May.

• Induction of senior officials 

Given the findings of the Volcker Inquiry and other instances of alleged misconduct, it is clear that a more robust approach is needed to ensure that once 

senior officials are appointed, they are properly briefed on the broader system 

of UN rules, regulations, codes of conduct and managerial systems. The UN 

is therefore developing a formal induction programme to provide in-depth 

training in these areas for senior officials of the Secretariat.

Status: DPKO’s first induction session is scheduled for June; the Office of 

Human Resources and Management will launch a pilot induction program for 

the Secretariat in the second half of 2005. 

II. Enhancing Oversight and Accountability 

Perhaps the most obvious shortcomings identified by the Volcker Inquiry and 

other crises are in the area of oversight and accountability. The current ‘‘control’’ 

systems for monitoring management performance and preventing fraud and corruption are insufficient and must be significantly enhanced.

• The Management Performance Board 

In order to ensure a rigourous monitoring of individual offices and managers, 

a Management Performance Board (MPB) has been created. It will systematically assess the performance of senior managers, bring to the Secretary-General’s attention instances which require his attention and advise him on suggested corrective action, where necessary.

Status: The membership and the terms of reference of the MPB have been 

confirmed. The Deputy Secretary-General will chair the Board and comprise 

two sitting Under-Secretaries-General and one former senior official. The 

heads of the Department of Management and the Office of Internal Oversight 

Services will serve as ex officio members. The first meeting will be convened 

before the end of June.

• The Oversight Committee for the UN Secretariat 

To address shortcomings identified by both the General Assembly and the 

Volcker Inquiry and to increase the effectiveness of the oversight function, a 

new Oversight Committee is also being established. The Committee, which 

will have three internal and two external members, will ensure that appropriate management action is taken to implement the recommendations of the 

Office of Internal Oversight Services, the Board of Audit and the Joint Inspection Unit. A new tracking system is being piloted for better follow-up of 

the 500-plus important audit recommendations issued each year.

Status: The UN has initiated selection of members, who will include two individuals outside the Secretariat. Terms of reference for the Committee are 

being finalized in a formal administrative issuance. The Committee will convene for its first meeting this summer and meet quarterly thereafter.

• Comprehensive review of OIOS 

In November 2004, the Secretary-General recommended to the General Assembly that the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) undergo a comprehensive external review to strengthen its independence and authority 

while ensuring it is fully equipped in terms of resources, expertise and capacity to carry out all aspects of its work. That recommendation was reiterated 

in the Secretary-General’s ‘‘In Larger Freedom’’ report. In addition, the GenVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
13

eral Assembly has asked the Secretary-General to report on how to guarantee 

the full operational independence of OIOS in the upcoming session this fall.

Status: The Secretary-General’s recommendation is currently before the General Assembly. Preparation of the Secretary-General’s report to the General 

Assembly is underway.

• Enhanced Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy 

The UN already has in place various disparate rules and policies designed 

to prevent fraud and corruption. However, following a recommendation of the 

UN’s external auditors, it is now consolidating them into a stand-alone, comprehensive anti-fraud and corruption policy. The policy will draw on existing 

best practices, including the model recently developed by the World Bank.

Status: The UN Controller is leading a working group to draft the policy. An 

interim report will be ready by June with the final policy scheduled for completion in September. 

III. Ensuring Ethical Conduct 

In direct response to the concerns about fairness and integrity raised in last year’s 

Integrity Survey among UN staff and to prevent the reoccurrence of such damaging 

incidents as the exploitation reported in certain peacekeeping missions, misconduct 

of senior officials and harassment in the workplace, the UN is implementing concrete steps.

• Whistleblower protection 

The results of the Integrity Survey indicated that staff had little confidence 

in the Organization’s ability to provide sufficient protection for whistleblowers. A review of best practice was conducted, using the expertise of a consultant recommended by Transparency International. The Secretary-General 

has now issued a robust new whistleblower policy and is seeking the views 

of staff before formally promulgating it. The policy is designed to provide staff 

a viable mechanism so that they feel free to come forward with their concerns 

with the confidence that they will be protected against retribution. The release of the draft policy was accompanied by a circular outlining to staff all 

existing avenues for the reporting of alleged misconduct.

Status: Staff consultations are already underway and the new policy will be 

promulgated as soon as this process is completed.

• Incorporating Ethics into staff training programmes 

The Office of Human Resources and Management is testing a new training 

module in the form of a CD–ROM on integrity and ethics provisions, which 

was adapted from an initiative launched by the UN Office in Vienna. The intention is that all levels of Secretariat staff would be required to complete the 

module. In addition, ethics modules have been added to all existing training 

programmes for UN staff and managers.

Status: The CD–ROM will be distributed to all UN staff by September.

• Responses to allegations of sexual misconduct by field personnel 

The Organization is taking systematic disciplinary action where individual 

cases of sexual exploitation and/or abuse have been identified. In the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, 147 peacekeepers have been investigated over 

the past 16 months; five UN civilian staff have been fired and 77 ‘‘blue helmets’’ have been expelled from the mission. Investigations there are ongoing, 

as are investigations in Liberia and Haiti. In addition, a number of short, medium and longer-term initiatives are underway:

• The introduction of a unified standard of conduct across all categories of 

peacekeeping personnel. Training has been integrated into all mission induction programmes. Credible complaints mechanisms have been established in all missions.

• A global review on the state of discipline in peacekeeping missions was 

undertaken by OIOS in late March-April, the results of which are currently being analyzed. In addition, missions are ensuring that victims of 

sexual abuse are referred to existing emergency assistance in the mission 

area (medical, psycho-social, legal).

• In the medium term, an enhanced capacity to address misconduct will include the establishment of dedicated units both at UNHQ and in the field 

to ensure prevention, identification of cases as well as compliance and enforcement of standards. Personnel Conduct Officers and/or focal points 

have been appointed in missions, with in-country networks developed to 

better coordinate and share information.

14

• In the longer term, the Secretary-General will undertake a comprehensive review of the welfare and recreation needs for all peacekeeping personnel as well as the development of a comprehensive strategy for victim 

assistance. New agreements with troop-contributing countries and UN 

partners will be developed and promulgated. In addition, a group of legal 

experts will be examining ways to ensure that UN staff and experts on 

mission are held responsible for the consequences of criminal acts committed in countries where no functioning judicial system exists.

Status: A request for additional resources is currently before the General Assembly (expected outcome: mid-June). Resources are being requested for significant strengthening of the UN’s investigative capacity and for the creation 

of conduct units in all peacekeeping missions. A UNHQ conduct unit will be 

established within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations by 1 July 

2005. A multidisciplinary workshop on victim assistance is being planned for 

June 2005.

Financial Disclosure by senior officials 

The UN Department of Management is preparing recommendations to expand the scope of financial disclosure required of senior officials, including 

those employed on a short-term basis or under special conditions. The appropriate mechanisms for monitoring these disclosures are also under review for 

immediate strengthening.

Status: A draft document is long prepared and will be considered by the Management Committee in June.

• Enhancement of Codes of Conduct/Conflict of Interest rules 

While the UN has in place a detailed Code of Conduct, it has not been disseminated to staff in an effective manner. The Office of Human Resources 

Management (OHRM) is reviewing the practices of other organizations in disseminating such information in more accessible and easy-to-read forms (web 

pages, handbooks, orientation guides, etc). Special additional rules are also 

being developed for staff engaged in procurement activities. A UN Supplier 

Code of Conduct is also being formulated.

Status: Materials should be produced and ready for dissemination in the fall.

• Protection against harassment in the workplace 

While the UN has a strict sexual harassment policy in place, OHRM is now 

finalizing a new, broader policy to encompass wider forms of harassment for 

consultation with the Staff Representative bodies. It is also assessing more 

effective ways of disseminating the provisions of this new policy.

Status: This policy will be discussed with staff representatives at the next 

Staff Management Coordination Committee later this year. 

IV. Increasing Transparency 

• Access to Information 

Currently, there is no established policy for determining which UN documents should be accessible outside the Secretariat. While a large number of 

documents are currently accessible, the UN needs a clear and consistent policy that increases transparency while ensuring confidentiality where needed. 

The Office of Legal Affairs has carried out an assessment of best practices 

in public administrations around the world. The new Management Committee 

will review this work and provide guidance on the best way forward.

Status: A new policy will be formulated during the course of the fall for discussion and action by Member States.

• External validation of the UN procurement system 

The Volcker Inquiry was critical of various UN procurement cases in the 

early years of the Oil-for-Food Programme. Since the mid-1990s, a major 

overhaul of the UN’s procurement process has been undertaken, making it 

more transparent and addressing many shortcomings identified in a number 

of different reviews. In the light of issues raised by the Volcker Inquiry, the 

UN Department of Management is commissioning a new review to benchmark the current system against the outside practice to ensure that the improvements meet the highest global standards.

Status: A competitive selection process for an external consultancy to undertake the review was completed in early May and the full review is expected 

to be completed by the end of June.

• Policy guidance on pro-bono contracts 

15

A working group led by the Office of Legal Affairs is drafting a new policy 

on the provision of pro-bono goods and services offered to the UN, building 

on a body of disparate existing practice and precedent.

Status: The policy guidance is due for completion by the end of June. 


21309a.eps
16


21309b.eps
17


21309c.eps
18


21309d.eps
19


21309e.eps
20


21309f.eps
21


21309g.eps
22


21309h.eps
23


21309i.eps
24


21309j.eps
25


21309k.eps
26


21309l.eps
27


21309m.eps
28


21309n.eps
29


21309o.eps
30


21309p.eps
31


21309q.eps
32


21309r.eps
33


21309s.eps
34


21309t.eps
35


21309u.eps
36


21309v.eps
37


21309w.eps
38


21309x.eps
39


21309y.eps
40


21309z.eps
41


21309aa.eps
42


21309ab.eps
43


21309ac.eps
44


21309ad.eps
45


21309ae.eps
46


21309af.eps
47


21309ag.eps
48


21309ah.eps
49


21309ai.eps
50


21309aj.eps
51


21309ak.eps
52


21309al.eps
53


21309am.eps
54


21309an.eps
55


21309ao.eps
56


21309ap.eps
57


21309aq.eps
58


21309ar.eps
59


21309as.eps
60


21309at.eps
61


21309au.eps
62


21309av.eps
63


21309aw.eps
64


21309ax.eps
65


21309ay.eps
66


21309az.eps
67


21309ba.eps
68


21309bb.eps
69


21309bc.eps
70


21309bd.eps
71


21309be.eps
72


21309bf.eps
73


21309bg.eps
74


21309bh.eps
75


21309bi.eps
76


21309bj.eps
77


21309bk.eps
78


21309bl.eps
79

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Malloch Brown. We will now 

entertain questions and first, Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder to what extent 

Secretary-General Annan and you and your team have focused on 

the inherent structural problem of the United Nations wherein tiny 

destitute dictatorships have the same vote in the General Assembly 

that the United Kingdom or the United States have. It has created 

over the years an untold series of problems, making the UN irrelevant in the eyes of many, a worthless debating society. 

I would like to ask you to address this issue first, if I may, Mr. 

Malloch Brown, because there is an underlying fundamental credibility problem when we constantly see attempts to equate the General Assembly to a parliamentary body. Well, it clearly is not a parliamentary body. A tiny dictatorship, destitute in its economy, is 

not the equivalent of the United States of America in either voting 

strength or the weight that its views ought to carry. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Lantos, thank you very much. We very much 

have taken into account this issue in the Secretary-General’s reform plans. At the moment, we have the very powerful but very exclusive Security Council and the relatively unpowerful but very 

noisy General Assembly. It is not a terribly functional arrangement. It is a club of the included and the excluded in terms of the 

culture of the UN. Those who are in the General Assembly, far 

from feeling it to be very powerful, are frustrated by its lack of relevance to real decisions. 

So the Secretary-General’s vision for reform is to create three 

councils. An enlarged Security Council more representative of 

world power today, with perhaps 24 or 25 members versus the current 15; a strengthened economic and social council to focus particularly on the fight against poverty around the world; the tracking of progress toward the Millennium Development Goals of halving poverty; of universal education for boys and girls, etc. 


21309bm.eps
80

And then this new Human Rights Council, built out of the ashes 

of collapsing the current commission with all the weaknesses that 

have been referred to. Between them, these three would have 100 

or so members, if you add up the membership of each. And this 

would allow member states to participate in a much more serious 

set of opportunities than has been the case until now. 

But in each, looking at membership on basis of relevance or in 

the case of the Human Rights Council, trying to insist on a minimum human rights standards and a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly for members and in the Security Council, looking to 

more representativeness vis-a-vis the world economy, we hope that 

three very serious, very thoughtful and collaborative councils can 

be built, which will not repeat the kind of attitudes and rhetoric 

of the General Assembly which frustrates you so and will become 

between them three pillars of a responsible, effective focused new 

United Nations. 

Mr. LANTOS. Have you or the Secretary-General given any serious thought to making membership in the Security Council—either 

in the new expanded category of permanent members or rotating 

members—contingent upon all members contributing to UN peacekeeping operations in a physical sense, not just in a financial 

sense? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, it is an interesting idea, and I know that you 

are getting at the fact that while the financial burden of peacekeeping falls disproportionately on the United States and other 

Western countries, the physical burden, the troops, are increasingly 

just from developing countries. Of the almost 70,000 troops currently serving in UN peacekeeping missions around the world, I 

think I am right in saying that only four are Americans. And just 

be clear, there are not many Europeans either. I mean, it is just 

that it has become very much a developing country troop-contributing model. And that is a real pity. It is a real loss in all sorts 

of ways. We argue very hard for America and others to contribute, 

because it gives a huge political seriousness to these peacekeeping 

operations if the U.S. or U.K. or others are part of the physical 

force. 

But it is not up to the Secretary-General to set those kinds of 

conditions. He is very aware that that is an inter-governmental 

issue that governments need to settle on and he would interfere in 

it, I think, at his peril. 

Mr. LANTOS. If I may ask one final question, what specific proposals does the Secretary-General have for ending the sickening 

pattern of singling out Israel as the cause of all international problems? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, you know, first, I think you know that we, because you were there, had a really remarkable celebration, if that 

is the word to use, anniversary, memory, of the 60th anniversary 

of the Holocaust at the UN and suspended many of the normal 

rules of procedure to allow it to be an event where Israel was celebrated, too, in all its richness as a society. 

Then the Secretary-General went to Yad Vashem, to the opening 

of the memorial museum in Israel. And I think if you were to ask 

someone such as Ambassador Gillerman, the Israeli Ambassador to 

the UN, I think he would tell you that this Secretary-General is 

81

doing his utmost to try and wipe the slate clean of these terrible 

former traces of anti-Semitism. But there are some things that governments have to fix, including Israel’s participation in the western 

European group of nations which is up to governments, not the 

Secretary-General, to resolve. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Mr. Malloch Brown, thank you 

for making yourself available for this briefing. 

Let me just focus for a moment on the peacekeeping issue which 

our Committee has spent an enormous amount of time on. Over the 

years, obviously, there have been mixed successes. Some of the 

peacekeeping has been outstanding, like in East Timor. And 

UNPROFOR, the failed effort in the former Yugoslavia, is an example of a very flawed mandate. But I would like to focus especially 

on what I think is a very aggressive attempt by the United Nations, working very strongly with the United States and other partners to really make zero tolerance when it comes to exploitation, 

not zero compliance as we heard just as recently as 8 weeks ago 

when we had a hearing on the Congo. 

I just want to point out for the record that I take your point and 

I would agree with it, that we need to be much more involved with 

UN peacekeeping from the standpoint of participation. But we 

should never overlook the fact that in places like South Korea, 

where we have over 30,000, I think it is 37,000 United States military personnel deployed in what was a UN mission to save South 

Korea from the aggression from North Korea. Obviously in Iraq 

and Afghanistan and Europe we have deployments all over the 

world, which is why our defense budget is so high. So we do think 

that we provide peacekeepers and peacemakers all over the world. 

But I take your point and I think it is a good one. 

If you would touch on how well you think the recommendations 

for reform are going to be received by the General Assembly and 

by the UN member states, because that is where the rubber meets 

the road. The reform proposals are good. I think they are outstanding, actually. The idea of vetting, the idea of training. Prince 

Zeid’s recommendations were right on the money. I have read 

them. I think they are very, very good. 

But we have seen good plans before that have gone awry because 

the member states failed to take it seriously, or there was a sense 

of this is today’s issue and then by next week or next month or 

next year, it drops off and falls into the abyss. We would not want 

that to happen here. So, do you really have optimism that these reforms will take hold? 

Mr. BROWN. I do. You know, because you mentioned her, Jane 

Holl Lute, my wonderful colleague, one of a number of formidable 

American women in senior jobs in the UN, Catherine Bertini having just left our ranks, but who will testify to you later. But Jane 

has been leading this effort in the department of peacekeeping to 

really try and fix this problem. 

Her ally in this, as you mentioned, is the Jordanian Ambassador 

to the UN, Prince Zeid, and he is key. Because really the problem 

is not so much in the membership at large, or even amongst those 

paying the bills. It is in the troop-contributing countries. It reVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
82

quires them to exert discipline over their troops and hold them accountable for behaviors which are not in every national setting 

treated with the same disgust and repulsion that we feel toward 

it. 

Prince Zeid has been very effective in persuading these troopcontributing countries that they are jeopardizing their reputation 

and jeopardizing the honor of their nation by allowing these behaviors to happen. 

So if you look now in the Congo, we, in the last year—well, sorry, 

4 or 5 months, we have investigated some 147 personnel of whom 

70-plus armed blue helmets have been expelled from the country 

and sent home. Five civilians have been fired. Several remain imprisoned in their own countries now. So we are seeing national justice and national military systems responding to our demands to 

work with us on these disciplinary issues, so, so far, so good. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could, as the UN Human Rights Council is established, my hope would be that the human rights issues that are 

promoted, and the abuses that are highlighted and hopefully held 

to account, the abusers will be those that are truly human rights 

abuses. And I note again one of the flaws that I think with the 

Human Rights Commission, as well as with Louise Arbor’s group, 

is that they have taken—and I have raised this with her personally 

in Geneva—the issue of the right to life of unborn children, also 

known as abortion, and have admonished certain countries to accept abortion as a human right. And I think that is the ultimate 

oxymoron. Unborn children—I believe in the declaration on the 

rights of the child, and the commission on the rights of the child, 

and the Preamble recognizes that unborn children are deserving of 

protection before as well as after birth. And that is the ultimate 

consensus breaker. 

These children, as we know now through ultrasounds and diagnostic techniques, before birth, prenatal surgery, are human 

beings. And we also know that abortion hurts women and that is 

becoming increasingly clear, because groups like Silent No More, 

led by people like Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King 

who had an abortion, is now pro-life, have said that this is the ultimate abuse against women, because they get hurt. So I would hope 

that the Human Rights Council, as it evolves, would not misuse its 

authority to promote abortion on countries where the unborn are 

protected. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, our Senior 

Ranking Member. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Malloch 

Brown, the Chief of Staff to the Secretary-General is here with us. 

I appreciate his comments in his earlier statement and I am hopeful that he will convey to the Secretary-General at least for an update regarding a letter that was sent about 2 months ago, signed 

by 37 Members of Congress, including myself, joining me in signing 

what was calling for a thorough review of the United Nation’s conduct concerning West Papua, New Guinea. 

In what became known as an act of no choice, Mr. Chairman, 

some 1,025 West Papuan elders, under heavy military threat from 

the Indonesian Army, families being intimidated, were selected to 

83

vote on behalf of some 1 million West Papuans on the territory’s 

political status. In spite of serious violations of the United Nations’ 

charter and the cries of help from the Papuans, West Papua was 

handed over to Indonesia in 1969. Since this time, West Papuans 

have suffered blatant human rights abuses, including executions, 

imprisonment, natural resources exploitation, and commercial 

dominance of immigrant communities. 

In fact, the State Department alone acknowledges Indonesia’s 

brutal record, stating that Indonesia security forces murdered, tortured, raped, beat, and arbitrarily detained civilian and members 

who are affiliated with West Papua, New Guinea. To put it in other 

terms, Mr. Chairman, over 100,000 West Papuans were murdered 

and tortured by the Indonesian military. 

In 1990, Nelson Mandela reminded the United Nations that, and 

I quote: ‘‘It first discussed the South African question in 1946, it 

was discussing the issue of racism.’’ And I submit that when we 

discuss the issue of West Papua, we are discussing the same. West 

Papuans differ racially from the majority of Indonesians. West 

Papuans are Melanesians believed to be of African descent. 

We are discussing also the question of commercial exploitation. 

In 1995, the Grasberg ore mountain in West Papua was estimated 

to be worth more than $54 billion. Local communities have received 

little or no compensation whatsoever from the Indonesian Government. In the statement before the UN concerning apartheid, Nelson Mandela said, and I quote:

‘‘It will forever remain an accusation and challenge to all 

men and women of conscience that it took so long as it has before all of us stood up to say, enough is enough.’’

On the issue of West Papua, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, I believe enough is also enough. And like Archbishop Desmond Tutu 

also said, adding his voice of growing international calls for the 

United Nations Secretary-General to instigate a review of the UN’s 

conduct in relation to allowing the discredit of the act of free 

choice. More than 170 parliamentarians from all over the world 

and 80 NGOs have now written to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 

and I submit that it is time for the Secretary-General to act. 

Special autonomy as supported by Indonesia’s newly elected 

President is no answer. Special autonomy is simply an effort to divide and conquer and this must have been an unacceptable recourse for the people of conscience. Furthermore, the issue of West 

Papua is not an internal matter or an issue of territorial integrity. 

West Papua was a former Dutch colony, just as East Timor was a 

former Portuguese colony, just as Indonesia was also a former colony of the Dutch. 

The historical evidence is clear on this matter, Mr. Chairman, 

and this is why East Timor achieved its independence from Indonesia in 2002, through a referendum sanctioned by the United Nations. This said, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the United Nations will support the people of West Papua, New Guinea, and 

allow the people of West Papua their right to self-determination, 

just as it was given to the people of East Timor, and not at the barrel of a gun or by casting of a vote. 

84

I realize, Mr. Malloch Brown, that I do not expect you to respond 

to my statement, but I did give you a copy of this petition letter 

that was signed by 37 Members of Congress, including myself, requesting that Secretary-General Kofi Annan thoroughly review 

again the history surrounding the circumstances concerning the 

United Nations’ failure to give the people of West Papua due justice and allow them the privilege of exercising their right of selfdetermination, just as we did to the people of East Timor. I think 

my time is probably up, Mr. Chairman. 

But I do not expect Mr. Malloch Brown to respond, but please, 

I would really appreciate it if you could convey the message to the 

Secretary-General for a response and hopefully that he will accept 

our request that we need to go back and revisit the issue in West 

Papua, New Guinea. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Malloch Brown. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. McCotter of Michigan. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again 

for holding this hearing. The more cynical amongst us would be 

tempted to remember that when a political machine is caught in 

corruption, the only sin that the political machine concedes is the 

sin of being caught. 

So the cynical would think that the spark for UN reform internally at the UN, absent the outside influence of individuals that 

are pesky, like say the United States Congress, seems to be a bit 

strangely timed to the uncovering of the scandals that are occurring at the UN. 

But I have a specific question for Mr. Brown. There was a recent 

newspaper story that talked about the United Nations Development Program granting a paid leave of absence to an individual to 

work on an American political campaign. Now, it is my understanding that that would be in violation of a staff regulation that 

says that you should insure that the participation in political activity does not reflect that somehow the UN is engaging in the internal politics and therefore, breaking their prime directive to be an 

international organization. 

I was wondering if you could explain, because I guess there is an 

investigation going on, so I do not want to ask anything that is 

going to be unfair, what is the basis for granting an unpaid leave 

of absence for someone to engage on a domestic political campaign? 

And what is the basis for allowing someone to take a paid leave 

of absence to work on a political campaign? The paid is especially 

problematical for obvious reasons, as taxpayer money from the 

United States goes into the United Nations. If someone is able to 

work, receiving the benefit of the monies that go into the United 

Nations, it can be seen that in classic political machine terms, that 

the institution is helping to fund and subsidize campaigns at the 

taxpayer’s expense, which I think would be a very big problem for 

people like me who are trying to figure out whether the UN is irredeemable or can be restored to the dream of Franklin Roosevelt. 

Mr. BROWN. Well, first, if I may, sir, just on the timing, UN reform has not just started since Oil-for-Food. This Secretary-General 

came in in 1997 with a lot of reforms at that time, strongly supported by the United States. And in the case of the reform at 

UNDP, that was the consequence of an organization in financial 

85

crisis that had lost its way to some extent, lost its sense of mission 

and purpose. And so I think, you know, there have been many 

other dynamics and triggers for reform in recent years. 

What, however, Oil-for-Food has exposed, is that despite the 

major reorganization and improvement of humanitarian, peacekeeping and other operational areas that have taken place under 

Kofi Annan, that there are some key issues of audit oversight, financial disclosure, management accountability which were not 

fixed in those earlier reforms. And there is also, frankly, the 

coruscating grip of bureaucracy which has not been broken in the 

organization. And it is those issues which I think he recognizes he 

must, in his last period in office, fix if he is to leave the legacy he 

aspires to leave. 

Now on the point about UNDP and the individual whom you 

read had taken time off to participate in an election campaign, let 

me just say that it was not a matter of paid leave or unpaid leave. 

He was taking his summer holiday, and without informing or seeking the permission of his superiors, he chose to spend it working 

on a campaign in his State. 

Now, actually, UNDP staff who work all over the world—and 

many of them are nationals of the country in which they work—

this is a continuing problem for us. They are dynamic young men 

and women who tend to have pretty strong political views of different varieties. You know, the rules of the UN are pretty clear on 

this, which is you must have no political activities which will embarrass the UN. So you can vote and the view is, you can, as a nonidentified member of any kind of political structure, you can participate in political meetings. There is a certain level of activity 

that you are allowed as your individual rights as a citizen of whichever country you are a member. 

But what you cannot do is join the campaign structure of an organization and that is what we are looking into. If he did it, what 

kind of barrier was crossed by doing it? I think it was an innocent 

mistake. We are waiting for the final results of the investigation 

to know, but it certainly does not amount to any subsidy, hidden 

or otherwise, by the UN of any side in the American political process. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Just quickly, the 1997 

attempts at reform that have led us to this point do not inspire 

confidence in me that this can be internally handled. Secondly, I 

do not know about the rest of us, but I think it would be very difficult for a Member of Congress to say, ‘‘Yes, my staff member 

worked on a campaign. We paid him, but the rules do not apply 

when you are on your summer vacation.’’ It might make for interesting reports that you send to your teacher, but it does not make 

for an exception to the blanket rule that you cannot do this. Thank 

you. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and let me say, I have 

reviewed the proposals that have been put forward by the Secretary-General and I agree with Chairman Smith, they are good, 

they are sound, they are excellent. But they deal with the Secretariat. 

86

And when we talk about UN reform, we are focusing on the Secretariat, but the bottom line is that it is the member states that 

run the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, not the 

Secretariat. And, again, as I indicated, with all due respect to you, 

Mr. Malloch Brown, you are hired help as is Kofi Annan and everyone else that serves in the Secretariat. 

So if there is a reluctance on the part of the Security Council to 

enforce its own mandates, such as the sanctions regime, and you 

heard my opening remarks. If that is the case and we acknowledge 

that the reforms proposed by Kofi Annan are good, we are still 

faced with the problem of the Security Council. How do we go 

about reforming the Security Council? As I mentioned, we had 

these so-called trade protocols. We have all read about the Oil-forFood Program and yet that is a minor piece of the problem. Almost 

75 percent of the illicit, illegal revenue that went to Saddam Hussein in support of his regime was as the result of the Security 

Council not insisting on the enforcement of its own mandate. 

I remember reading a report that said the Security Council ‘‘took 

note.’’ What does that mean in real terms? I suggest it means nothing. How do we solve that problem? I mean, $9 billion went to support the regime and my friend from California, I know he will call 

a hearing and hopefully we will get Madeleine Albright there and 

Colin Powell and maybe they can give us an explanation of why the 

U.S. Mission did not make an objection. Or maybe somebody else 

has that answer. But $9 billion went to Saddam Hussein as a result of inaction by the Security Council. Can you help me? 

Mr. BROWN. I am not sure I should. I mean, I think this is very 

much an issue for the Administration and Congress. I think that, 

indeed, some waivers were sought even from Congress, I am told, 

on some of this. But, you know, I think we all understand the political context of neighbors needing oil and some of them being allies 

of the U.S. or others on the Security Council. But, of course, what it does show is that this $9 billion was determined by a series of political decisions and is quite outside the 

issue of any individual corruption alleged toward UN officials. And 

I thank you for raising the issue, because it does put the real scandal of UN Oil-for-Food into important proportionality and context. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Flake of Arizona. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brown. 

With regard to the proposed reforms, kind of the three pillars, one 

being human rights, which would elevate human rights from its 

current position, the Commission for Human Rights. What is 

planned with regard to making a better situation than we have 

now? The situation now, as you know, we have countries like Cuba 

and Zimbabwe and Syria and Libya and others passing judgment 

on human rights or in a position to do that. Can you enlighten us 

as to what you have planned that will make the situation better? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, Mr. Flake. The proposal and again, member 

states will have to agree to it, is that you would need two-thirds 

vote to be elected and that there should be a discussion also of criteria your country should meet in order to put your name forward. 

And indeed, for most of the membership to agree to vote for you. 

But this will be, if you like, like any set of club rules. For the 

members to agree amongst themselves, but the whole purpose here 

87

is to raise the bar of membership to make sure that the Council’s 

membership is one that gives people confidence that it is a fair, 

balanced place to discuss human rights in. 

I think many would argue that you do not want to make the definition so limited that only people with the most pure human rights 

reputations can participate, because part of the power of the UN 

is that less good performers have a chance to debate and mix with 

very good performers and hope that some of it rubs off. So you are 

never going to get just the United States and western Europe in 

such a body. That would be self-defeating. But we hope this would 

eliminate the kinds of countries that you have mentioned. 

Mr. FLAKE. What has the Secretary-General said since 1997 in 

this regard? Has he been critical of the process? We just do not 

hear much, here at least. It is basically a fall back on, well, it is 

a member country. But why should we have any more confidence 

in the prospect of reform now than we have in the past? He has 

been there since 1997. You would think that some of this would actually have come into effect by now. 

Mr. BROWN. A lot has, you know. GAO has looked at the implementation of the reforms he made in 1997 and a lot has been implemented and a lot hasn’t been implemented, too, frankly. But 

what has been implemented has created a much more effective humanitarian response that some of you, at least, I think would acknowledge did a good job after the tsunami in Indonesia and is 

doing a vital job all over Africa as we speak, with different kinds 

of emergencies, manmade and natural. We have a much better development structure at the organization. 

The peacekeeping operations, despite the problems that have 

been raised about sexual harassment and exploitation, nevertheless, is performing in many more countries to a much higher standard than before. And in an area like elections, we have gone from 

nowhere when Kofi Annan took over, to having provided the critical electoral support for Afghanistan, Iraq and several dozen other 

countries over the course of the last year alone. So huge changes 

have been made and he has been extremely critical, the SecretaryGeneral, of issues like the Human Rights Commission, which have 

not lived up to the spirit of those reforms. So I think he has a good 

track of what he said and of criticizing the things that do not work. 

Mr. FLAKE. Getting back to the Human Rights Commission and 

this newly formed commission or body, if we have a situation a couple of years from now with this newly constituted body where a 

country like Zimbabwe or Cuba or Syria could get on there again. 

At what point would the Secretary-General simply say, ‘‘I am sorry, 

this is not working. Let us walk away from it, let us not even have 

this facade that this Human Rights Commission even has any 

credibility.’’? From our perspective, it is easier for us to go back to 

our constituents, taxpayers who are footing a lot of the bill here. 

You know, if you have somebody at the top willing to call a spade 

a spade and say, ‘‘I am sorry, this just is not credible.’’

We really have not seen that and, you know, after, what are we 

looking at, 8 years, there has been really no change in the human 

rights side. I just doubt without some kind of financial leverage, 

some kind of tying funds to reform if we are really going to get it. 

Thank you. 

88

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff of California. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Malloch Brown, we 

appreciate your being here today and I appreciate the time you 

gave me when I visited the United Nations about a month or so 

ago. 

I wanted to ask you about two issues. The first really involves 

the changing nature of the UN from its founding and its orientation toward dealing with the problem of interstate warfare to the 

equally, if not now more prevalent problem of intrastate violence. 

And I would like to ask you what progress has been made to reform some of the way the UN operates to deal with problems most 

tragically demonstrated in Darfur and the continued problem to get 

the United Nations to act when you are dealing with ostensibly one 

nation’s sovereignty over its own internal affairs. But we are seeing 

now not only the internal terrible toll that takes but also its likelihood of leading to intrastate violence and problems for the entire 

region. 

So if you could talk generally about the efforts that are being 

done to change the orientation of the UN to deal with that problem 

and specifically what the obstacles have been to doing more in 

Darfur? And then second, one of the proposals that I have been 

very supportive of, and Mr. Lantos has been a champion of, is the 

idea of strengthening a democracy caucus within the United Nations, and I would like to get your view on how that would affect 

the institution? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you and nice to see you again and thank you 

for visiting in New York. You know, on Darfur, I look at it as the 

litmus test of this group of managers of the UN, because it does 

have the potential to be a Rwanda that happens on our watch. It 

reflects a lack of organized political will by member states, including the Security Council, to do what it takes to stop what is happening. And that is an extremely dangerous situation to be in. Why 

I have made the comparison to Rwanda is only that there was a 

similar estrangement between the UN and its principal backers, including the United States, at that time, which allowed, if you like, 

a lack of political authority coming out of the UN to beef up its 

military mission there, to be able to credibly threaten those perpetrating genocide with the consequences if they continued. 

We need that same credibility today in Darfur. We have a good 

African Union peacekeeping force there, but it is too small and 

underresourced. The Secretary-General and Mr. Konare of the African Union are going to co-host next week in Addis Ababa a donors’ 

conference to raise the logistics and financial support to expand 

that African Union force. We are very much counting on strong 

American support for that and Secretary Rice has indicated it will 

be there. 

But we have to go beyond that to a credible political voice to the 

Sudanese, as well, to make them understand the consequences of 

not acting. And also to make the rebel leadership understand the 

consequences of not getting a political negotiation going, as well. 

And for me, all the talk we have had this morning of UN reform 

will ultimately amount to nothing if Darfur happens on our watch. 

And I actually wear, and have made most of my senior colleagues 

wear, a little green wristband, Not on My Watch, Save Darfur, beVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
89

cause this for me is the real litmus test of effective UN reform, that 

Darfur does not happen in terms of deteriorating into a possible 

new round of massive human rights violations. 

On the democracy caucus, you know, the community of democracy is something that we in UNDP particularly have been huge 

supporters of. We hope that its membership will become an unofficial group within the UN to push for the promotion of democracy 

and human rights. That is for member states to organize and, you 

know, I think they have a lot of work to do to agree on how to work 

together around these issues. 

But, you know, central to the Secretary-General’s vision to his reform plan is that we are promoting democracy as one of the critical 

human rights of people everywhere. That requires democratic 

states to act with us to promote that goal inside the organization. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Malloch Brown, in the remaining few seconds I 

have left, why is more progress not being made on Darfur? Is it a 

lack of resolution within the Security Council? I mean, if this is a 

litmus test, and I agree it is, so far the results are not promising. 

Mr. BROWN. May I answer, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HYDE. Please. 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think it goes to the core of this problem of 

everybody wants to stop Darfur happening, nobody wants to put 

their own troops in harm’s way. This is a very difficult conflict and 

in an area of Sudan the size of France, a long way from anywhere 

in terms of deploying troops and resources. The Sudanese have 

made it very clear, they only want African troops and will make 

trouble for a non-African peacekeeping force. 

So the barriers to action and the risks are high, and the political 

pressure on governments to say, ‘‘Whatever the risks, the needs 

mean we must get there and do the job’’ are not there. So I believe 

we have to rebuild the political pressure that existed here in this 

country and elsewhere a year ago to act on Darfur. This is not 

something that the Security Council will do in isolation. It requires 

political pressure from this House and Congress and from American public opinion, as well as those in other countries. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. 

Brown. I find very encouraging the information you are providing. 

I take very positively your personal commitment to reform. As I 

think about the United Nations in the last year, I am very appreciative about what the United Nations has done to make it possible 

for the first free elections ever to occur in Afghanistan and the 

courage of the persons who put the election together, because several lost their lives simply for registering voters. 

Additionally, I appreciate the efforts in Iraq with, again, putting 

together the ability for the extraordinary election of January 30 

and the United Nations had such a lead in that. And you get such 

a bad rap on everything, the things that are done well should be 

recognized. 

I am also very appreciative of the UN’s role in assisting with the 

replacement of the textbooks in Iraq. The former textbooks which, 

indeed, were anti-Israel, anti-American, have all been removed and 

so the dictator is no longer identified as the reincarnated NebuVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
90

chadnezzar. So this is, to me, positive, that steps forward in the development of civil societies. 

But I am very grateful also to be on the Oversight Subcommittee 

headed by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. I have been appalled, 

really, about the Oil-for-Food Program, how it could even have 

been established. It was so flawed from the beginning, it was an 

open invitation for fraud. The oil vouchers themselves, which could 

be used for influence peddling, for favoritism, for kickbacks. Then 

the purchase orders which were sweetheart deals, again padded, 

influence peddling. 

In the future, hopefully, something like that will not occur. Is 

this sort of a model of what not to do? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, thank you, Mr. Wilson, thank you very much 

for the nice words for the operations you mentioned. I am as appalled by Oil-for-Food as you are and what it has revealed about 

management weaknesses. The political origins of the program are 

clear, though. Saddam Hussein, remember, had negotiated peace. 

He had not been defeated. He was still in power and the conditions 

under which he was willing to accept regulation of his oil sales was 

that he continued to both sell the oil and buy the incoming goods 

into the country. That was the condition and he was supported by 

the permanent Security Council members in doing it. 

The UN’s task was to make sure that those goods could not be 

used for military purposes, something that the UN was very successful in doing. The corruption lay largely in the design of the program and the political roots of the program. But I can tell you, and 

this is English understatement when I say we have learned the lesson. We would do it differently the next time. 

Mr. WILSON. And that is what I wanted to hear, because I was 

not aware of how, from my perspective, how naively it was put together. It just was not real. 

But at the same time, with the billions of dollars at stake, do you 

see any avenues where money might be recovered from persons 

who were involved in this program that could then be provided to 

the people of Iraq, which was the intent of the funds? 

Mr. BROWN. Let me just say that, you know, I think we have to 

see the full scope. Senator Coleman is revealing the names of those 

who benefitted, allegedly benefitted from the program and we will 

then have a better sense of who got what. And that would be the 

basis to seek recovery. 

You know, in the UN case, we have examined ourselves minutely 

through the Volcker Panel and so far, you know, the oil allocations 

to a UN official or contacts with a UN official were in the order 

of $2 million. So it is a fraction of the several billion that others 

appear to have benefitted from. We are taking action within our 

own house. I hope governments will be as vigorous in chasing down 

wrongdoing by their nationals and seeking just a solution as we are 

doing. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding 

this hearing today and I thank my friend, Mr. Lantos, as well for 

participating and my colleagues. Mr. Malloch Brown, I represent 

91

portions of Queens County and although many of the people who 

are employed at the UN have their desks in Manhattan, their bed 

is in my district. So it is important in a number of ways for me 

to see the UN survive, I guess you could say, and to flourish in my 

city. 

I am not one of those who would espouse that the UN cease to 

exist, nor cease to exist in my city. And I walk very cautiously 

when discussing or evaluating what the UN has done, what the 

history of the UN is, what it is about and what the future holds 

for the UN. I am also one who is not afraid of delving in and looking into, from time to time, how things are operating and I think 

it is probably a good thing that we are doing that now. 

Certainly, the Oil-for-Food Program has left many questions in 

the minds not only of American taxpayers, but people around the 

world, in terms of the integrity of the UN. I think it is unfortunate 

that that has taken place, but a full airing needs to be done and 

an accountability needs to be established, I think, for the process 

to move forward. 

I am just going to shift this slightly and it is somewhat related 

because of the role of the UN. As my colleague indicated before, 

coming out of the historical sense of stopping international conflict 

to maybe now looking more at intranational conflicts that are taking place. One of the roles of the UN, aside from the human rights 

issues that I know Mr. Smith has been a champion of, is also the 

disaster relief that the UN has been involved in over the years. 

More specifically, most recently, the tsunami that hit our world. 

I had the opportunity to be in Sri Lanka just a few days after 

the tsunami and worked with some UN groups there to see how 

the aid is being distributed. I know the famous statement by Mr. 

Jan Egeland after the tsunami hit that the West was being particularly stingy in terms of its response. I think the U.S. response, both 

governmentally and individually from U.S. citizens, and the West 

has been incredible in terms of the outpour. 

I do also note and I understand that what it will take to help 

these countries recover from this disaster is not a one-shot deal. 

This is going to be a multi-year approach in terms of helping them. 

What is the UN doing to insure that the monies that have been collected and that have been routed through the Donor Fund are 

being spent properly, that it is getting to the people that need the 

assistance? We all know and I know particularly that in the developing world, the level of corruption, the kickbacks that are involved, the payoffs in order to get, you know, wanted grain off of 

a ship can be incredible. And the delay that is caused by that in 

terms of getting it—you know, the American people have, I think, 

a short tolerance for these types of things. And when that is exposed and people understand that, it is going to, I think, impact 

severely and in a negative way in terms of what they will do in the 

future as well. 

Can you just respond? What is the UN doing to insure that that 

is not taking place or doing its best to curtail that type of activity? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, thank you and it gives me an opportunity to 

say as, indeed, Jan Egeland himself has said, the U.S. response to 

the tsunami was anything but stingy, it was very generous and far 

reaching by both American citizens and the American Government. 

92

But that does, of course, as you rightly say, put a real premium 

on performance. Americans reach deep into their pockets, but with 

a little bit of skepticism about whether their money would reach 

those it was intended for. So we have to prove it has, and not just 

the UN, but the many American non-governmental organizations 

who received huge amounts of money from the American public. 

We are all on trial to show performance. 

Two things I would point to particularly. We engaged 

PricewaterhouseCooper to run a global tracking system with forensic audit capability to it, where needed, to supplement all of our 

own audit, internal, and external arrangements that we currently 

have, to really give the public confidence that their money was 

going to be used properly. 

Secondly, as you probably saw, former President Bill Clinton, 

having served his co-envoy with former President Bush here is now 

taking on the task of the UN’s envoy for this. As he said, I thought 

I had been hired to raise money. I see I, in fact, have to work to 

make sure that the money that has been raised is properly spent. 

So he is personally very seized with making sure we have the 

tracking systems in place. Because as you rightly say, this is a region of the world with a reputation for corruption, and where a 

large amount of investment is now going in in the form of aid, 

where preventing corruption, preventing inflation in prices, making 

sure people get what they need is a big management and political 

challenge, but one that the world will judge us by. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Malloch Brown. Thank you, 

Mr. Crowley. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much and we appreciate you 

being here today, even though it had to be a briefing instead of a 

hearing. Let me ask you about that subtlety there. Of course, you 

are not under oath, so you can say what you want. 

You are present here in the United States, you are a UN official. 

Are you an official subject to United States law? 

Mr. BROWN. Whenever you ask questions in a very gentle voice, 

I get worried, Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me first say that, you know, 

I have an oath of office to the UN Charter and flag which would 

prevent me, even if we were in the UK and this was a hearing, I 

would not be able to take an oath there, either. That is the charter 

drafted by the United States, which I think everybody agrees we 

have to respect. I hope it in no way impedes my honesty of answers. 

In terms of the second part of the question, as a very senior UN 

official, I have, indeed, full diplomatic immunity. Most of my colleagues have only what is called functional immunity, which covers 

acts carried out in the course of their official duties. So if they were 

drunk driving after work, they would face the same full force of the 

law as anybody. 

In my case, the Secretary-General has always made it clear that 

for those kinds of offenses, you know, criminal offenses or civil 

breaches which have nothing to do with our official conduct of our 

duties, he would equally always waive our protection so that we 

faced whatever sanction was appropriate. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right, I can understand that definition 

there. So you are not subject to U.S. law. What law is it that you 

93

are subject to when you are doing your duties and it may be a 

crime or most people would consider it a criminal activity? Under 

whose law then would you be prosecuted? 

Mr. BROWN. In general, we work under a set of arrangements defined in an international arrangement of immunities and privileges 

which, for example, to give you a hypothetical example, governs the 

American special interest section in Cuba. Without the same immunities that I have here, an American diplomat operating in 

Cuba or anywhere else would be subject to arrest or harassment, 

etc. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But the U.S. diplomat in Cuba is subject to 

American law. 

Mr. BROWN. Well, in the same way as I have said to you, wherever there is an issue of illegality, I would be, as well. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, no, I am talking about within the concept 

of his job, if he was not doing something that was considered legal, 

he would be prosecuted by American law, then. 

Let me ask you about Iqbal Riza. He was your predecessor, who 

was found to have been shredding documents relating to the Oilfor-Food scandal for 8 months, prior to his leaving his office. Let 

me ask you about him. He retired, is that right, and those shredded documents, did Mr. Kofi Annan agree with that? Was that 

something that he went along with, that those documents should 

be shredded? 

Mr. BROWN. No, he was unaware of it at the time. He accepts 

Iqbal Riza’s explanation that they were duplicate so-called cron 

files of documents of which there were originals in the central filing 

system. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You accept that explanation? 

Mr. BROWN. It is not for me—I mean, the Secretary-General 

does. Just to be clear, Mr. Volcker himself, in his report, while 

criticizing it, did not find a so-called adverse finding against him, 

because he concluded he had not broken any rules and it ultimately 

did not damage the investigation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And as we know, some of Mr. Volcker’s investigators disagreed with some of—thought he was a bit soft on some 

of the top leaders. 

But let us say this Mr. Riza was actually shredding these documents to cover up this crime of billions of dollars that have been 

pilfered or channeled somewhere else. So now he is retired and he 

is just retired to wherever he wants. There is no accountability 

there, is there? There is no law that he is going to be prosecuted 

for it. Is that right? He is just off the hook? 

Mr. BROWN. No, no, no, let me again be clear as is the case with 

other individuals named by Mr. Volcker. We have been clear that 

the moment any national authority, either here or in countries 

where the crimes may have been committed, if there was an issue 

of money wire transfers, which means there were crimes in other 

jurisdictions, as well. The moment anybody wishes to pursue criminal charges, immunity will be waived. They are subject——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But this was inside, he was doing this as 

part of his job. He is inside the United Nations, which is, of course, 

located here. Why has the United Nations not moved to do something to charge him with something themselves? 

94

Mr. BROWN. Because Mr. Volcker concluded there was not something to charge him with, that it was a terrible error of judgment, 

but not a criminal mistake. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Malloch Brown. Thank you, 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Ms. Napolitano. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I keep hearing 

many questions related to the money that the Oil-for-Food Program—are there any other funded programs that need to be looked 

at that might fall under the same category, that might have a problem in the future that involve money that might be abused? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, you know, we have many billions of dollars of 

programs. We hope there is no other Oil-for-Food Program and to 

give us assurance on that, we are strengthening the Office of Internal Oversight and Audit to make sure that we have the forensic 

investigative capacity to catch these problems much quicker than 

occurred in the case of Oil-for-Food. So we want to make sure that 

never again do we appear before a Committee such as yours having 

to explain away an Oil-for-Food Program. It is not a happy situation to be in when you are entrusted with public money and the 

program went wrong. We do not want that to happen again. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Were there any indications that were beginning to show, that somebody might have been able to address before this whole amount of money was lost? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, in my opening statement, I referred to oversight problems. You know, our internal audit found problems with 

the program, not of the criminal nature that has subsequently been 

exposed, but issues of weak supervision of the program, weak controls. And those findings were, with hindsight, not adequately 

acted on by senior management. 

So one of the reforms we are making is to establish a mechanism 

for making sure every audit finding is followed up on and corrections are made where they are needed. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Okay, but is the audit being performed on all 

programs with funding that might then prevent this from happening again? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. There is internal audit on all programs, but the 

whole of the UN is also covered by external audit arrangements, 

where a rotating group of three governments provides external 

audit oversight in addition to our own internal arrangements. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Well, Mr. Brown, some of the Members of our 

Committee have expressed seeking reform in the UN budgeting 

process. More specifically, they would like to force the United Nations to agree to remove programs that they do not see as part of 

the organization’s core mission out of the portion of the UN budget 

that is assessed as dues. If this could be accomplished, it would 

rhetorically free up a large portion of the U.S. contributions to be 

redirected toward policy priorities or at least policy priorities that 

we see as priorities. How realistic is this idea and would a threat 

by the U.S. to withhold consensus support for the next budget or 

to withhold a portion of our dues be likely to leverage this change 

in the budgeting process? 

95

Mr. BROWN. On the first point, the Secretary-General also has 

proposed that there be a sunsetting of old programs which are no 

longer high priority. One has to, however, be aware that a lot of 

the programs all of us in this room do not like are relatively cheap, 

whereas the programs we want to build up, like peacekeeping, are 

very expensive. 

To just give you a sense of this, the non-peacekeeping budget of the UN is $2 billion a year. The peacekeeping budget is $4 billion. 

So you would have to make a lot of savings in the first to provide 

more money for the second. Similarly, UNDP which you all like, or 

I hope like, is $4 billion a year. So the good things are more expensive than the bad things, which makes the complete trade off of old 

priorities for new ones not dollar neutral. 

The second issue, I would just say, on the withholding is, you 

know, we feel very strongly that your reform ideas, what we know 

of them, are very good, very strong and very consistent with what 

other reforming countries want at the UN and that you need to 

work with them to achieve them. And that the option of withholding immediately separates you from your allies, because it is 

seen as America acting alone rather than in partnership with reform-minded allies. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Why is it that many countries hate the United 

States when we are a donor country? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think we all spend a lot of time wondering 

why there are those attitudes. The United States is the founding 

spirit and moving force behind the United Nations. It has been critical to its affairs as it has to the broader issues of world peace and 

security and development, to which the UN is committed. But, you 

know, often the U.S. manages to project itself in the forum as a little bit with a big stick rather than a hand reached out. And I think 

more of the latter would help overcome this terribly unfair perception of the United States. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Malloch Brown. Ms. 

Napolitano. Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As a former judge, I believe in consequences for bad conduct and when improper conduct 

occurred, I do not believe in saying to the person responsible, ‘‘Try 

to do better.’’ And normally, we look to the head of any organization when the organization is in trouble. 

It seems an important first step for the United Nations to regain 

credibility is for Kofi Annan to step down. Under his watch, the 

world’s largest financial and human rights scandal has occurred. 

The UN Oil-for-Food scandal makes the Enron scandal in my home 

town of Houston look like the theft of a toothbrush and it resulted 

in millions of lives languishing in Iraq. In the ongoing investigation, it seems Kofi Annan and his top staff may have obstructed 

justice and maybe destroyed piles of files that many suspect show 

how much he knew about what was going on. 

So I believe that there should be consequences and my question 

is: What is the United Nation’s position for consequences in its own 

body for improper conduct? 

Mr. BROWN. I will answer you on that, but let me just say——

Mr. POE. I did not understand. You are not allowed to answer 

me on that? 

96

Mr. BROWN. No, I said I will answer you, but let me just respond 

to—I would never say no to a judge. But let me just respond to the 

Enron comparison. A lot of senior officials in Enron, if one is to believe what one reads in the newspapers, got very rich out of what 

happened at Enron. So far, one UN official may have made a little 

under $200,000 in commissions on oil allocations. But it has not 

been proven. 

So this is not, actually, on the scale of Enron. This is much more 

about management failures and weaknesses, not about massive 

personal enrichment. And the real scandal lay outside the UN, it 

lay in the network of political deals which covered the four fifths 

of oil revenue made from oil trading that was referred to earlier by 

Mr. Delahunt. 

But to go to your point about accountability, I think in the 

United Nations like in any public organization, the top man is ultimately accountable. But, you know, that has to be balanced against 

the fact that many in the world recognize that the mistakes that 

came, came from political deals and from decisions which were 

largely out of the Secretary-General’s control. And that a much better demand of him is to correct the things that caused this problem. 

He has always made clear that if there was any issue of personal 

responsibility, in terms of his own behavior, if there is any proof 

that he influenced a contract or anything else, he would be the first 

to step down. But there has been no such proof of any such behaviors by him, and he feels that in that sense, he is innocent of 

wrongdoing, but badly needs to reform the organization he leads. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. May I pass and come back to me? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Congressman Leach. 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Malloch Brown. First, let 

me just say on the positive side, because a reference to the tsunami 

was raised earlier and I want to say as someone who was in Sri 

Lanka, the role of the United Nations was very impressive. The 

professionalism of UNDP, FAO, etc. was extraordinary, particularly 

the UN much more than the United States, the only place in the 

tsunami region that had the best access to the so-called rebel controlled parts of the country and has played a very positive role in 

the relationship to tsunami relief as well as in relationship to peace 

building. I think we should all recognize that the UN has served 

well as its founders intended in that particular circumstance. 

With regard to the issues of the day, and whenever there is a difficulty, it is the obligation of public officials to make clear that it 

cannot be ducked. We all know that we have a world in which corruption is more the order of the day than otherwise in many parts 

of the world. The UN in one sense reflects international community, but in another sense has to be above it. And when it comes 

to corruption, the sense is that there is no reason whatsoever not 

to have the highest conceivable standards. And that is what makes 

less than perfect the Oil-for-Food Program, less than perfect deVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
97

struction of documents that have been very lightly passed over in 

this discussion to date. 

This is an umbrage of seminal significance and I do not think it 

is something that the UN should deal with in any other terms except that. It is one thing to understand that an international body 

should have lots of conflicts in it. It should, but it should have no 

conflicts of interest and that is where I think there is some concern. 

Now I want to ask a question that is a little different than has 

been raised publicly and privately. The Oil-for-Food Program was 

the most unique UN program I have ever known of, because in its 

administration, a group of countries was given veto authority over 

every single contract, including the United States. And so in terms 

of orderliness, individual countries had accountability as well as 

the UN institution itself. Do you know of any instances or examples where there are conflicts of interest with individual country 

supervision of this program, and has the UN looked into this? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, let me just say on the first point, Mr. Leach, 

I have followed you for many years for your Banking Subcommittee 

and I know you are a gold standard of the need of integrity in the 

way, the standards you demanded of us when I was at the World 

Bank and others, and I really take your point seriously. And that 

is what troubles me as a UN official about Oil-for-Food. I do not 

think our lapses were as bad, and certainly not as criminal in character as some suggest. But any lapse in an organization like the 

United Nations is a fall from grace. We do have to be better than 

the best and we clearly are not. And that causes me huge dismay 

as a UN official and a determination to get it right and get it corrected. 

To turn to the second point about the arrangement in the Security Council where this so-called 661 Committee cleared contracts, 

you know, Mr. Volcker is trying to look into the operations of that 

committee and I believe the Senate investigation under Senator 

Coleman and Senator Levin is doing the same, to try and understand to what extent decisions made there were made purely on political calculations and to what extent other factors may have 

counted. 

And I think all of us are reading the revelations in the newspapers with equal concern and interest to understand was there 

some influencing of decisionmaking? But this is, again, one of those 

issues where the UN in the form of the Secretary-General and the 

management really are powerless to look into this. Mr. Volcker is 

trying, but it requires an intergovernmental decision and congressional support for that. 

Mr. LEACH. Fair enough. Let me just ask one final question, 

though, that ties into this. Unrelated to whether there is a conflict 

of interest of a UN employee, one of the extraordinary aspects of 

the UN system is, and it appears that some of these contracts were 

used to influence governments on UN policy. And I have never 

known, in my time of looking at public affairs, of any instance ever 

in which funds under a UN program were used to influence powerful people in foreign capitals to affect their government’s approach 

to UN policy, much of which was directly related to the security interest of the United States. 

98

And so what you have is a circular circumstance of towering significance in ways that do not exactly relate to whether a UN employee himself had a conflict of interest. And is this under discussion at the highest levels of the UN? Do people think this through 

with great clarity? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Malloch Brown, if you could respond in 

just 1 minute? 

Mr. BROWN. Sure. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. The monies used, these oil allocations, were not 

under the control of the United Nations. I mean, this was the network where Saddam handed these allocations to political allies 

around the world. But the description that you make of this network of possible supporters around the world bought with these oil 

allocations is a dramatic story, if true, about the corruption of foreign policy making around the world. But it is governments and 

congresses which are going to have to get to the bottom of this. I 

do not think we will be allowed to. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you very 

much for your agreeing to come here and address our issues. I 

want to take a slightly different, I have a slightly different concern. 

It is my belief that the United Nations is virulently anti-Israel and 

anti-Semitic, from the resolution equating Zionism with racism. 

The more recent condemnation of Israel’s right to build a security 

fence—which I think any nation has a right to protect its civilian 

population from lunatic suicide bombers strapping explosives filled 

with nails and broken glass and rat poison on their chest to explode and kill innocent Israeli women and children—to the referral 

of the fence issue to the ICJ, where it had no business going, and 

the inability of Israel, the continuing inability of Israel to join 

multi-lateral and regional groups where they could have some genuine power and authority in the UN, instead of just being no more 

than observers. 

Israel’s treatment by the UN, in my opinion, is unfair, racially 

motivated and anti-Semitic in nature. Can you explain to me what 

your role is and what you can do in your role to improve the situation and improve the environment when it comes to Israel and the 

virulent anti-Semitism that exists at the UN in general? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, let me say as a young man doing very different 

things, I helped draft Shimon Peres’s speech when Israel returned 

to the United Nations after staying away after the Zionism is Racism Resolution. So I feel this issue extremely strongly at a personal 

level. And, you know, this Secretary-General, long before I started 

working with him, had insured the removal of the Zionism is Racism Resolution because he, too, saw this as a terrible scar on the 

reputation of the organization, and has fought very hard to demonstrate his own respect and support for Israel and its full involvement in the UN. We had mentioned earlier the event in the General Assembly for the 60th anniversary of the Holocaust and his 

own visit to the Yad Vashem opening in Israel. 

And certainly I, working with him, have tried to be very open to 

American Jewish groups to work together to try and find ways we 

can overcome this. Ultimately, of course, we are our membership 

99

which, as Representative Lantos says, with all its flaws and things. 

So these resolutions are not the UN in terms of management. They 

are a decision by our members. And similarly, the exclusion of 

Israel from the western European group is a decision of western 

European Governments and others in that group. It is not a decision of the UN. 

But I suppose the best contribution, frankly, that we can make 

is through the quartet to actively help the United States in its efforts, as a fellow quartet member, to secure a lasting peace in the 

region, because that is the final way to remove the poison from this 

relationship, which is not peculiar to the UN but is a product of 

the terrible conflict between Israel and their Palestinian neighbors. 

Ms. BERKLEY. If you were the State of Israel and you had to rely 

on a quartet that consisted of the United Nations, which its members are virulently anti-Semitic, Russia that is anti-Semitic, and 

the European Union, who has not been particularly supportive of 

Israel, would you like your future and destiny in the hands of this 

group? 

Mr. BROWN. I would first probably make sure I relied on the 

strongest leg in terms of its friend there, the United States, which 

it does. But I would welcome the others as the necessary means to 

reach out diplomatically to make sure that all parties to this conflict agree to progress. 

This was not meant to be a group just of friends of Israel. It was 

meant to be a group who could deliver Israel what it wants above 

all else, which is peace with its neighbors. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I am sure you could understand as a Member of 

Congress and as an American Jew how conflicted I am when it 

comes to the United Nations. While I fully appreciate the basis 

upon which the United Nations was created and the good deeds 

that it occasionally does and the role it plays in keeping peace in 

some areas and some instances, the continuing treatment of Israel 

by the member nations leaves me somewhat cold and very hesitant 

to be particularly supportive of the United Nations until there is 

some genuine reform in this area. So I thank you very much for 

your answers. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Is Kofi Annan’s son an official at the 

UN? 

Mr. BROWN. No. 

Mr. BURTON. Oh, well, awhile ago you said that nobody at the 

UN has been found guilty of major skimming off of money, so to 

speak, but there are accusations that Kofi Annan’s son, who is not 

a member, but is fairly close to somebody in power over there, has 

made some money. 

You know, one of the things that concerns me, and you are very 

good—you are very good—one of the things that concerns me is 

that first of all, Mr. Iqbal Riza was destroying documents for a long 

time. But these were just duplicates. Do you recall thinking the 

world is going to believe that after all the scandals we have seen 

here in Washington where they were shredding documents in the 

past? You know, it does not require an answer, but that was very 

slick, very smooth, you know, that these were duplicates. I do not 

think anybody buys that. 

100

Second, has Mr. Volcker put anybody under oath? This is a rhetorical question. I do not think he has, and even if he put somebody 

under oath and they lied, what is the penalty? There are not any 

penalties. Oh, I made a mistake, no penalties. 

The Congress of the United States and the Chairman of this 

Committee have asked for documents as have Senate Committees. 

We have received virtually no cooperation. And when we finally 

found two people who left the United Nations and gave us six 

boxes of documents, Mr. Volcker said, ‘‘Oh, my gosh, that is wrong. 

We want those documents back.’’ We have had absolutely no cooperation from the United Nations in getting to the bottom of this 

and yet we provide almost 25 percent of the funding for the UN. 

And every time we have a big problem with the UN, it is just kind 

of swept under the rug and people say, ‘‘Well, do not worry about 

that, just give us more money.’’ Not to mention the exorbitant salaries and other fringe benefits that are given over there, which we 

have looked at over the years. 

I would just like to ask you, what can we do as a Committee and 

as a Congress to get cooperation so we can see what documents are 

left that have not yet been shredded? What can we do to see those 

documents so that we are assured that the money we are giving 

to the United Nations is being wisely used and that the Oil-forFood Program and the people who violated the law are going to be 

brought to justice? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, Mr. Burton, first, there is a UN official whom 

I did say, you know, did receive oil allocations according to Mr. 

Volcker. What has not yet been proved is whether or not he criminally received monies for doing that and that is still being investigated by Mr. Volcker. 

But he or anybody else who has been guilty of criminal wrongdoing will face the full force of U.S. or other national law as appropriate. So there is sanction for lying, for criminality, as there is in 

any organization. As regards the documents, I think you understand very well the difficulty of protecting the confidentiality and 

effectiveness of an investigation. Mr. Volcker’s debate with Congress about these documents is entirely analogous to that special 

prosecutors have had over the years with this Congress about 

which documents you get when, under what conditions, to protect 

confidential sources and their safety, etc. But Mr. Volcker, in communications with Mr. Hyde and with Senators Coleman and Levin 

and Congressman Shays has indicated, and I am sure he would 

want the same thing to be extended to yourself and Congressman 

Rohrabacher, you know, he is willing to try and find a solution that 

you can see or hear the testimony of this inspector who left his employ. But under circumstances which do not undermine and prejudice his ongoing investigation. 

Mr. BURTON. If I might just interrupt real quickly, because I do 

not have a great deal of time, I was Chairman of a major investigation of a President of the United States for 4 years. And we met 

with the Attorney General and the head of the FBI on a number 

of occasions and we worked out agreements where we could get 

documents. And we sent out over 1,200 subpoenas to get documents so that we could get to the bottom of that and we were able 

to get most of the information that we felt was relevant. We did 

101

not get all the indictments that we thought were necessary, but we 

were able to work that out. 

So far, as far as I can see, we have not been able to work out 

any kind of agreement with Mr. Volcker or his Commission for this 

Congress, which I think has a right, since we give so much money 

to the UN, to see these documents and to talk to them about that. 

I mean, you say that it is being worked out, you say that they are 

willing to talk to us, but so far, I have seen no evidence that the 

Volcker Commission is willing to work with the Congress. As a 

matter of fact, he has asked for the six boxes of documents that we 

have back. We need some cooperation. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. 1 minute to respond, Mr. Malloch Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. First, I am sorry Mr. Hyde is not here, because I 

think he would confirm that he and Mr. Volcker are in intense discussions. They have spoken many times in recent days over the 

phone to try and find a solution to this which gives you the access 

you want while protecting the investigation in its future. And we 

would much prefer to find a political as against a court solution to 

this. 

Secondly, as soon as I was appointed Chief of Staff, I came down 

and saw a number of your colleagues and you, unfortunately were 

not available, but I saw your staff and said, ‘‘What are the categories of documents you all most need?’’ At that point, it was the 

audits, the 661 Committee notes. We made sure all of those were 

available. And the U.S. Mission in New York has worked very 

closely with us to make sure these categories of information were 

available to you. So I think we are trying very hard to be as cooperative as we can be within the diplomatic constraints we genuinely 

face. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Ms. Watson of California. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Welcome, Secretary Brown. I am a supporter of the United Nations. The disparaging words that have been used in the past toward the United Nations makes it more and more difficult for America to gain its integrity in the world. And believe me, as I travel around this globe 

as recently as 3 weeks ago, the anti-American expressions are very 

appalling to me. And I am hoping that we can have a spokesperson 

in the United Nations that has the sensitivity to be able to work 

with these other nations that are in control, say, of the Security 

Council. 

And I just want you to know, corruption does not only reside at 

the UN, but it resides right here. And I believe that you are innocent until proven guilty. 

Now the problem I see is the application of the rule of law and 

many of the countries that we are dealing with do not believe in 

the rule of law, therefore do not practice it, while the laws are 

changing here daily. So we are trying to spread our democracy 

around the globe and we cherrypick the laws that we want to observe and sustain. 

And saying all that, I am looking through your statements of 

goals and I laud those goals because, just coming back from Qatar, 

600 people in a meeting from around the globe on democracy and 

free trade, the recurring theme was terrorism feeds on grievances. 

102

I am going to repeat that. Terrorism feeds on grievances. There are 

a lot of grievances out there and I look at your goals that are supposed to address the grievances. Eradicating extreme poverty and 

hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting general 

gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality. 

These are laudable and wonderful goals. Can you make a comment 

in the rest of my time as to how the UN is trying to achieve those 

goals? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for a very kind and very to the point 

question. I would hate to leave here today without the chance to 

say a word about that bigger panorama, the things that really are 

going to make a difference in our world. 

But let me pick up the first point of security. I think we all realized on September 11, 2001, something had fundamentally changed 

in all our worlds. We all draw different lessons from it, but part 

of it was that the rich are as vulnerable to the consequences of instability in the world as the poor. The ability to, from a failed state 

such as Afghanistan, project this devastating attack into New York 

itself, I think made us all realize in a new way the importance of 

dealing with failed states, with poverty of these other sources of 

grievances. And that added to every American’s desire to make the 

world a better place and to give everybody opportunity. 

And as courses laid behind these so-called Millennium Development Goals that you referred to, the idea that the United States 

in coalition with other donor countries, working with enlightened, 

well-governed, transparent developing countries can beat global 

poverty. We know how to do it now. There is a track record of success, of getting girls into school, of really getting important objectives achieved which will transform a country over a relatively 

short period of time through education and health, economic reform, market-based reform and the promotion of democracy, to 

name just a handful of the top components of such a strategy. 

And we have laid out with governments a sort of plan of how to 

get there, which the United States is part of but cautious about the 

cost and obligation to put our resources for it. But I hope a commitment for that plan will come out of this summer’s G–8 meeting to 

be held in the U.K. and then out of this summit in September. Because, again, it is really what matters, not just the reforms in New 

York, but a world which can genuinely tackle poverty. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I certainly also would like to 

express my appreciation for the United Nations and the very complicated system that governs it. One of the problems with some of 

my colleagues that get very excited is that I do not think they understand how the organization works, and then it certainly seems 

like irrelevant questions about having someone responsible for the 

behavior of their children. If that was a uniform issue, many of us 

would be in trouble. We do not necessarily find it easy to dictate 

what our children do every day, nor do I think it is necessarily the 

responsibility of an adult to be held accountable for the behavior 

of another adult, if that other adult used advantages because of a 

relationship. I do not think that was the first time that that hapVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
103

pened. Perhaps it should not have happened and if there is some 

proof that illegality was done, then the son should be called to answer for it. But I just am amazed at this connection that we make 

between the son and his behavior. 

Let me just ask a general question quickly. There were a number 

of forms that were requested in 1997, major restructuring to improve management and costs, reducing administrative costs and 

staffing, creating a code of conduct for personnel, consolidating administration, finance personnel procedures, other services streamlining technical support, to establish a Deputy Secretary-General to 

sort of be a cabinet-like leadership and management structure, senior management group, and strategic planning units and on and 

on. 

And in your opinion, when many of these suggestions have been 

made from 1997 to today, what kind of marks would you give in 

the implementation of some of these suggestions that have been 

made to the United Nations, primarily by the United States? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, GAO took a look at it and about a third, up 

to 40 percent of the reforms have been fully implemented and 

about two-thirds have been partially implemented. So it is not a 

perfect track record but it is a relatively good one and key things, 

many of the things you mentioned, the creation of the post of Deputy Secretary-General to take on much of the day to day responsibilities of the organization and the management sense and to 

take on all of the coordination roles, a lot of the other things you 

touch on have been done. So I think, you know, there is a very 

solid track record of reform since 1997, but ultimately, the organization has still got a long way to go, because it started life running 

conferences and writing reports and being a group of diplomats 

doing diplomatic things. 

It is now running some very big, complex global operations and 

needs the management systems and people to run these new kinds 

of challenges more effectively, frankly, than it has done in some 

cases. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay, thank you. There has been a report on the 

High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. There were 

six issues that the United Nations decided it would focus on, war 

between states, internal conflict, civil war, poverty, infectious disease and environment, nuclear, chemical, biological, terrorism and 

transformation of organized crime. How do you think that the UN 

is geared to deal with these six specifics? I think it was intended 

to sort of restrict and reduce the overall global issues that came up 

and focused on these six. Do you think that the organization is in 

a position to come up with some achievements and will it focus on 

these six basic issues? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. 1 minute to respond. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay, we are very close to them. I mean, there are 

some detailed discussions going on in New York now which the 

United States has a very active part in, of which specific issues of 

those to include in the sort of heads of government meeting in September, as things to be endorsed and agreed to. A definition of terrorism is right up there. The improvement of non-proliferation regimes for both nuclear weapons, but also new categories of weapons. 

104

The issue of the responsibility to protect, which is this right of 

intervention in places such as Darfur. In these and some other 

issues, there is real steady progress as the diplomats on both sides 

are whittling away at their differences to agree how to go forward. 

On some others, it will take a bit longer to fix, because trying 

to get 191 governments to agree to all issues in one go is quite a 

digestment. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much and thank you, Mr. 

Payne. I will ask the last question. We have to go into recess because we have a series of votes. Thank you so much. I wanted to 

ask about the UN building and Lebanon. 

At a time of limited resources, and we have been talking about 

that a great deal, does the UN feel that contributions would be best 

used for the refurbishing of the UN Headquarters Building in New 

York City, rather than specific programs? Would you not agree that 

first reforms must be made to the UN system, trust has to be restored before thinking about construction improvements to buildings? 

And on the second question on Lebanon, has the UN been able 

to verify true Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, not just security 

forces, but intelligence personnel as well? And what is being done 

by the UN to insure full compliance with other aspects of the UN 

Security Council Resolution 1559, which was not just the withdrawal of forces? And what will the UN role be in Lebanon after 

the upcoming May 29 elections? 

Mr. BROWN. First on the building and you may want to ask Catherine Bertini, who was in charge of this for quite awhile, her views, 

too, when she sits here. But, you know, it is not an either/or. The 

building is just unsafe. It is one of those buildings built with so 

much asbestos in it that, you know, its systems are failing us. And 

it is, by all accounts, the worst building in New York in terms of 

basic standards. So it has to get fixed. We are looking at the cheapest way of doing that which is least disruptive to the work, and the 

U.S. Congress has generously approved an interest-based loan for 

us to do it, so the cost will be shared by all member states. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you and if you could just move to Lebanon? 

Mr. BROWN. Sure, on Lebanon, let me just say that a mission 

was there last week assessing compliance of full Syrian withdrawal. It is reporting, I think as we speak, to the Security Council 

and, you know, there is no doubt that, as far as we can tell, that 

there has been full military withdrawal. There are the issues of the 

intelligence assets, which are, like any good intelligence assets, less 

visible to the naked eye. I think there will probably need to be a 

continued process of monitoring and ensuring complete withdrawal. 

On the other aspects of the resolution, let me particularly note 

the Hariri investigation into his assassination. We are now mounting, at the agreement of the council, a full investigation after our 

first report which indeed said this had not been properly looked 

into. And so we will be announcing the appointment of the leader 

of that trip. It will be a huge undertaking. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. So I think we are very much involved in Lebanon. 

105

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. I would like to recognize Congressman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Madam 

Chair. Mr. Malloch Brown, let me ask you a question, because I remember very well back in 1993 when former U.S. Attorney General 

Richard Thornburgh sat where you sat and made an impassioned 

plea to the Congress and to the world, really, and to the UN body 

to establish a very transparent Inspector General Office. 

And I note that you made, I think, a very strong point that withholding funding to try to engender reform in your view was not 

productive and perhaps even counterproductive. And yet, at the 

time, 10 percent was held in fiscal year 1995 and 20 percent in 

1995 and then when the certification came from the Secretary of 

State, the money was provided when the OIOS was established. 

Could you just very briefly tell us your view as to whether or not 

that office now has the tools, the capability to truly be independent, 

to compel testimony, to go wherever the leads may be the way an 

IG has to? The GAO, in talking about Oil-for-Food, found that constraints on the internal auditor’s scope and authority prevented 

auditors from examining and reporting on problems in the Oil-forFood Program. As you know, they made 667 recommendations in 

58 reports. Has the problem of that group of people been fixed or 

is it in the process of being fixed? Because to me, good governance 

has to have that check and balance and has to have an independent Inspector General Office. 

Mr. BROWN. The answer is yes and no. It is the one bit of the 

budget which has grown over the last 10 years, has been this office 

as it has built up its capacities. The Inspector General has just recommended and the General Assembly has agreed to a new head of 

it, a remarkable Swedish woman who was Auditor General of Sweden and is currently Auditor General of Kosovo. She is a formidably, independent-minded woman who fought with the Government of Sweden for years about their accounting practices. So she 

is going to be a force for independence. But we are requesting a big 

buildup of its investigative capacities, so that whether it is sexual 

exploitation or abuses of the Oil-for-Food Program, we will be able 

to much more forensically investigate than has been the case in the 

past. 

We are also asking for an assessment of the capacities of the office, to benchmark it against similar audit oversight capabilities in 

other organizations, to see whether it is right sized or not or 

whether it needs to be enhanced. The U.S. Government is very interested in this, very much following what we are doing and with 

strong views of its own on this. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. We have 5 minutes left 

to go. Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just wanted, in closing, Madam Chairman, 

to thank again Mr. Malloch Brown for being here. I think your 

presence here has also helped tremendously Members of the Committee, because there is a lot of misinformation going on concerning 

the United Nations. I would strongly suggest to the Secretary-General that you should come here a little more often and it really explained a lot of the questions that Members have that had not been 

given. Thank you so much for being here. 

106

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Malloch Brown. 

We thank you for addressing this Committee this morning. As we 

go forward with our UN reform legislation, we will certainly share 

it with you, look forward to future discussions and get your input 

on the legislation. Thank you for joining us. 

I would like to now introduce our second panel. 

Testifying on the first panel of the hearing, because we are resuming today’s hearing—first it was a briefing and now we are in 

a hearing, totally different—will be Mark P. Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. Dr. 

Lagon has served in this position since January 2004 and is responsible for multilateral policy development, UN-related human 

rights humanitarian policy, UN administration and reform, and the 

Bureau’s public diplomacy and outreach programs. From 2002 to 

2004, he served as a member of the Secretary of State’s policy planning staff. Prior to his service with the Department of State, he 

served as a senior member of Senator Jesse Helms’ staff on the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1999 to 2002. So we will 

hear from our friend when we come back and the Committee is 

temporarily in recess. 

[Whereupon, a short recess was taken.] 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. As we have said, we are privileged to have 

Dr. Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, testify and we welcome your full 

statement, which will be made a part of the record. And we welcome you, my good friend, once again to our Committee. Thank 

you, Mark, for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF MARK P. LAGON, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. LAGON. It is a pleasure to be here. Thank you, Chairman 

Ros-Lehtinen. We are glad to have the opportunity to share with 

you our efforts to promote management and oversight reforms at 

the United Nations. We see the United Nations as an instrument 

for making the world safer and for enlarging freedom, with the potential to do even more if it is reformed. 

Secretary Rice said recently, ‘‘It is no secret to anyone that the 

United Nations cannot survive as a vital force in international politics if it does not reform.’’ The Secretary-General himself admits 

that the time is ripe for change. His focus on the larger issues of 

institutional arrangements have brought a new intensity of discussion and opened a window of opportunity for real reform. And Congress’ heightened interest has opened the window for opportunity 

even wider. 

It is absolutely essential to the success of this current effort to 

make the United Nations more effective, that management and 

oversight reforms are not lost in the rush to improve the structure 

of UN bodies and their programs’ work. 

We have learned from the Oil-for-Food Program investigations 

that the UN Secretariat needs to be more focused on the importance of better management, transparency and oversight. And we 

have been working on it in small and tangible ways. The United 

States was able to get a resolution adopted that mandates that the 

107

Office for Internal Oversight Services, or OIOS, release any of its 

audit reports to member states upon request. That is a significant 

step. Now the Volcker Committee and the public have access to reports on Oil-for-Food that they never had access to before, but more 

needs to be done. We need to go further to create greater independence for OIOS, since it is still very beholden to the bureaucracy 

that it inspects and audits for funding. 

There are encouraging signs that Secretary-General Annan is 

taking the issue more seriously, seen embodied in Mark Malloch 

Brown here, in his briefing. Kofi Annan has set up two committees 

that he will chair, a policy committee and a management committee, which will help build the culture of performance and accountability to improve policy planning. We hope these committees 

will tangibly serve to insure that reforms that have been identified 

are actually implemented and we also hope that the creation of a 

management performance board will successfully track how well 

senior managers are performing. It is a long overdue idea. We welcome efforts to create an Office of Ethics and Professional Conduct 

and propose a stronger regime of disclosure for UN employees. 

The general report on UN reform that the Secretary-General put 

out, ‘‘In Larger Freedom,’’ had an element on management reform. 

These more recent proposals supplement those proposals in that report, ‘‘In Larger Freedom.’’ The Secretary-General basically makes 

four recommendations, some of which have real merit. He asks the 

General Assembly to review all the UN-mandated activities over 5 

years old, to see whether they are still genuinely needed or whether their resources should be allocated. That is a meaningful reform 

for which we have been looking for years. The Secretary-General 

also wants to do a comprehensive review of budget and human resources rules in the UN and that is welcome. 

Other ideas he raises in the ‘‘In Larger Freedom’’ report will be 

more difficult for us to accept, notably buyouts, costly buyouts of 

employees, which may sound like a way of winnowing staff. But 

often more qualified and capable workers who get good jobs outside 

of the UN system would be the ones that would benefit from costly 

buyouts. Moreover, the call for another independent review of 

OIOS, which has been reviewed in the past, might actually be more 

of a delay from getting on with the business of strengthening 

OIOS, where we and other nations already have proposals. 

Madam Chairman, there are several very specific management 

and administrative reforms we in the U.S. Government are pushing for with allies in the UN system. They lie in three main areas: 

(1) creating a culture of accountability and integrity; (2) improving 

effectiveness; and (3) boosting basic relevance of UN programs. 

They are summarized, as I am going to lay out now, on the chart 

over to my left and your right. 

In the area of creating a culture of transparency, accountability, 

and integrity, the first thing we are focused on is OIOS. Last fall 

in the General Assembly we proposed giving OIOS an independent 

budget. We have not achieved that yet, but it is being studied in 

the UN and we are going to push further with that idea, given the 

fact that the IIC, the Volcker Commission, has called for that very 

same idea. 

108

Additionally, we think internal oversight needs to be boosted particularly in peacekeeping missions. It is imperative to enhance that 

internal oversight in peacekeeping missions, given the sexual 

abuses of children by peacekeepers in the Congo and other countries that have come to light recently. Efforts by OIOS and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to create an investigative 

unit to look into sexual exploitation and abuse allegations are worthy, but it will take a proactive effort by the member states to support the creation of such units and we are already going about 

working on getting that support. 

Thirdly, in small UN agencies, they often do not have the capacity to create internal oversight and there is a ready standing capacity in the OIOS. When you look at the case of the World Meteorological Organization, where an employee stole $3 million, one could 

see that a small agency like the WMO could turn to OIOS and essentially outsource its regular internal oversight in a cheap and effective way. There has been a proposal out there by Switzerland 

and Germany to try that with WMO. We think we should try and 

pursue that, but it would require the General Assembly to okay the 

internal oversight role for OIOS in independent agencies, because 

OIOS has only been authorized to date for the Secretariat and the 

UN funds and programs. 

In the culture of transparency and accountability, we think that 

the duty that exists for the Secretary-General to waive immunity 

on those who are found to be wrong-doers needs to be exercised. In 

that Convention on Privileges and Immunities that Mr. Malloch 

Brown spoke of, there is actually cited not only the right but the 

duty to waive immunity in cases that would impede a court of justice. We want to try and achieve a reform within the UN system 

that would make that waiver a more regular, standard choice by 

the Secretary-General. 

Then finally in this area, conflict of interest. Conflict of interest 

regulations need to be improved, because the emphasis in the Secretariat to date has been on avoiding inappropriate public pronouncements. That needs to be stronger. There needs to be a focus 

on even the appearance of conflict of interest. 

Additionally, in the independent agencies of the UN, they tend 

to have even weaker provisions for conflict of interest being prevented than the Secretariat itself. Notably, one can see the case of 

the World Intellectual Property Organization in which an Assistant 

Director General is being investigated for his wholly-owned company accepting money from the general contractor building a new 

WIPO building. 

In the second area, we want to improve the basic effectiveness 

of the United Nations. We need to conduct a comprehensive study 

of the Department of Public Information and, in particular, drive 

forward the idea of consolidating UN Information Centers. In western Europe, nine UN Information Centers were consolidated into 

one, in Brussels. There is no reason why this effort could not be 

pursued in other regions, including the United States. 

Translation services, which cost nearly $2 million a year need to 

be outsourced and automated. One way to do that would be to use 

time zones and the world wide culture to farm out translation to 

other time zones and get it done for a lot less. We should also reVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
109

duce the cost and frequency of conferences. There just has to be a 

basic rationalization. The member states need to grapple with the 

priorities of conferences, and we need to stop the process of member states and UN experts getting a 40 percent per diem bonus 

above those who normally travel to UN meetings. 

A final two points in the general area of boosting the relevance 

of the United Nations to achieve its original intended purposes. We 

need to expand the authority that has been given to the SecretaryGeneral to move people from functions that are no longer useful, 

or never were, to more important functions. We achieved, in December 2003, an authorization for 50 posts to be moved by the Secretary-General. But the U.S. Government is very disappointed that 

he has not used that yet. He should use that and we should expand 

that authority. 

Finally, we need the review of the usefulness of program mandates. There should be sunsets. Programs should regularly, like 

peacekeeping missions, have a time that they end, and are reviewed and would have to be proactively reauthorized. And in those 

programs that already exist, they should be reviewed. We think 

that they should be reviewed after a regular amount of time. We 

have gotten the agreement from other nations we work with, the 

other 13 major donors to the UN who, in total, pay 80 percent of 

the bills, that we should review all programs that are over 10 years 

old. 

So to conclude, we are working with our allies, particularly large 

donors, to try and achieve a culture of accountability and integrity, 

to improve effectiveness and to boost the relevance of the United 

Nation’s role. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lagon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK P. LAGON, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Chairman Hyde, Congressman Lantos, and Members of this Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to share with you our efforts to promote management and 

oversight reforms at the United Nations. 

The United States has long advocated for reforms that make the UN more efficient and effective. We see the UN as an instrument for making the world safer and 

enlarging freedom with the potential to do even more if reformed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

We need global cooperation if we are to advance peace and security, and specifically to defeat terrorism; halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; end 

trafficking in persons; advance human rights and democracy; and reverse the 

human and economic toll from conflicts, disease, poverty, and natural disasters like 

the tsunami. 

Yet, as Secretary Rice said recently, ‘‘It is no secret to anyone that the United 

Nations cannot survive as a vital force in international politics if it does not reform.’’ 

The State Department recognizes that the UN has made some progress in management reform, but we see much more work ahead. More transparency and accountability for results and management practices are needed. 

The Secretary-General himself admits that the time is ripe for change. To his 

credit, his focus on the larger issues of institutional arrangements has brought a 

rather new intensity to the discussion and opened a window of opportunity for real 

reform. I also believe Congress’s heightened interest has opened the window of opportunity even wider. 

Mr. Chairman, there is justifiable and healthy skepticism over how much the 

United Nations can reform itself. It is absolutely essential to the success of this current effort to make the UN more effective that management and oversight reforms 

are not lost in the rush to improve the structure of UN bodies and their programs 

of work. 

110

WHAT IS WRONG IN THE UN SYSTEM?

As the largest assessed and voluntary contributor to the United Nations and its 

technical and specialized agencies, the United States bears a special responsibility 

to ensure the UN is living up to its original purposes and principles. You cannot 

ensure the UN is doing what we want it to do without accountability and resultsbased budgeting and management. You cannot prevent fraud, waste, and misconduct without institutional measures that ensure the highest standards of professionalism, and good results through transparency, oversight and better management. 

Indeed, one of the lessons we have learned from the Oil-For-Food investigations 

so far is that the United Nations Secretariat needs to be more focused on the importance of better management, transparency and oversight. Credible oversight is critical, but codes of conduct must also be enforced; and managers held accountable for 

their own actions as well as the actions of their people. 

The UN needs to work harder to implement results-based budgeting and management in every program. That means programs, once created, should not continue 

without regard for results. More need to be ended when their effectiveness wanes. 

The UN system also needs rationalized budgets that do not grow year after year 

on auto pilot, that have greater oversight, that reward workers for good performance 

and value added, and that hold them to account. 

We are beginning to see the UN address these problems. This past January, for 

example, we were able to get a resolution adopted that mandates the Office of Internal Oversight Services release any of its audit reports to member states upon request. Program managers will now be held accountable for their programs. That’s 

a significant step, but more is needed. OIOS is still too beholden to the very bureaucracy it is inspecting and auditing—especially for its funding. 

All of the lessons I have pointed out explain why we continue to insist that a new 

culture of management accountability be instituted in all of the UN’s work. 

WHAT THE SECRETARY–GENERAL IS PROPOSING

There are encouraging signs that Secretary-General Kofi Annan is taking this 

issue more seriously. For example, he recently set up two committees that he will 

chair, a policy committee and a management committee, to help him build a culture 

of performance and accountability and improve policy planning. We hope these committees, particularly the one on management that is to review decisions on budget, 

oversight, and major reform efforts, tangibly serve as catalysts for change and mechanisms to ensure that reforms already identified are implemented quickly and completely, and that new reform ideas and concepts are considered on a continual basis 

for action. 

The Secretary-General has also announced the creation of a Management Performance Board to track how well senior managers are performing, particularly in 

properly undertaking the responsibilities assigned to them. This is a long-overdue 

mechanism to improve accountability to both the Secretary-General and to member 

states. 

In addition, we welcome his plans to create an Office of Ethics and Professional 

Conduct, and to propose stronger financial disclosure requirements for senior officials and mid-level professionals. He is also working on instituting mechanisms for 

mandatory ethics training for all personnel as well as mandatory training on professional conduct. 

These recent steps by the Secretary-General supplement the management reform 

proposals in his recent 53-page, 222-paragraph report titled In Larger Freedom. 

There is a good deal in that report we can agree with in terms of structural reformslike getting the UN Democracy Fund up and running, creating a Peacebuilding 

Commission, and transforming the tragic hypocrisy known as the Commission on 

Human Rights. While the Secretary-General has made a good first step to improve 

management, we and other Member States think that more needs to be done. 

UN Member States, and particularly its largest contributors, want to know if they 

are getting the most value for the dollars they contribute. People who look to the 

UN for help want to know that, too. Providing the leadership to ensure that the UN 

is operating efficiently and effectively is the Secretary-General’s most important role 

as the UN’s chief administrator. It requires constant assessments and, where warranted, working with member states to update and improve the way the UN Secretariat departments are managing their operations and programs. 

The Secretary-General basically makes four recommendations in his report, some 

of which have real merit. For example, he asks the UN General Assembly to review 

all UN mandated activities over five years old to see whether they are still genuinely needed or whether the resources assigned to them could be reallocated to reVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
111

spond to new and emerging challenges. Such meaningful program review is something we’ve sought for years. 

The Secretary-General also wants to conduct a comprehensive review of the budget and human resources rules under which the UN operates. This would be welcome 

as well. 

But other proposals are more difficult for us to accept. For example, while we 

agree that the Secretariat needs people with the skills and experience to address 

new and emerging challenges, we do not think costly buyouts are the way to achieve 

that outcome. Oftentimes, people who are attracted to buyouts are the more qualified and capable workers who can get good jobs outside the UN system. The UN 

needs a more effective and fair evaluation system for all personnel so that those receiving unsatisfactory ratings will be weeded out sooner rather than later. A buyout 

could be costly and less effective. 

In addition, while we applaud the Secretary-General for emphasizing a need to 

improve accountability and oversight, we do not believe that yet another General 

Assembly commission is needed to first review OIOS. Another review would needlessly delay our efforts to address its existing needs. We need to move now to 

strengthen OIOS, and we already have concrete proposals for making the budget of 

the OIOS independent of the Secretariat. 

It is also worth noting that in 1997 and again in 2002, the Secretary-General 

launched the Track I and II management reform initiatives that have yet to be implemented fully. In 2003, in fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reported that the UN Secretariat had made progress in implementing only 51 percent of those initiatives. According to the GAO then, with regard to performancebased budgeting, the UN had only completed the initial phase of adopting a resultsbased budget format: it had not begun to develop a system to monitor and evaluate 

results. Since 2002 result-based budgeting has moved ahead; the UN’s 2006–2007 

draft budget reflects the effort to develop indicators, which can be used to match 

resources with performance. 

Mr. Chairman, a key challenge in reform is not just getting reforms adopted, but 

also in persisting in seeing the implementation of those reforms through to completion. Initial steps taken toward instituting performance-based budgeting are of little 

use if the UN does not follow through to evaluate results and ultimately base continued funding of those programs on their effectiveness in meeting their objectives. 

We will take a careful look at the 2006–2007 budget with that perspective in mind. 

Moreover, management and oversight reforms should never appear to be an afterthought. They should be an integral part of any effort to make the UN more effective. For this reason, we are making clear to the Secretariat and other member 

states that management and oversight reforms must not drop out of whatever reform initiatives emerge by September. 

OUR MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM PRIORITIES

Mr. Chairman, there are several very specific management and administrative reforms we are pressing for that I’d like to mention here. They fall into three main 

categories: creating a culture of accountability and integrity, improving effectiveness, and boosting relevance. A fair number of these proposals can be instituted relatively quickly, while others must wait for action by the UN General Assembly in 

the fall. 

Creating a Culture of Transparency, Accountability, and Integrity 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that strengthening the independence of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is critical to creating a culture of transparency, accountability and integrity in the UN Secretariat. To meet professional standards for 

effective and independent oversight, OIOS must be more independent of the offices 

and activities it audits and investigates. Currently, OIOS is dependent upon reimbursement from the UN funds and programs it is investigating for the costs of such 

investigations. And it must go to the Secretariat with proposals for more funding 

or personnel. 

1. Strengthen the Independence of the OIOS 

Last fall in the General Assembly, we proposed giving OIOS an independent 

budget, so that member states could weigh in on its full budget requests. While that 

did not happen, the General Assembly did end up directing the Secretary-General 

to report to them this fall on how to achieve full operational independence for OIOS, 

in accordance with its original mandate. 

Since then, the Independent Inquiry Committee into the Oil-for-Food program has 

helped bolster our effort by also recommending budgetary independence for OIOS. 

We plan to put forth our proposal again and have gained the support of other major 

112

contributors to the UN. We also will take a look at whether OIOS has the necessary 

resources and mandate to carry out oversight for the UN, as well as for all the UN 

funds and programs. 

2. Enhance Internal Oversight of Peacekeeping Missions 

It is also imperative that we enhance internal oversight of UN peacekeeping missions, particularly in light of the sexual abuses of minors by peacekeepers in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and several other countries. 

At this time, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) has provided for internal oversight in each mission to help prevent and, if necessary, investigate misconduct. But its own internal oversight resources are not sufficient to handle the number of accusations coming to light. Increased capacity for OIOS investigations and personal conduct units in all peacekeeping missions are important 

first steps in creating a culture of zero tolerance for misconduct. 

The Secretary-General has sought to fund on a permanent basis personal conduct 

units in large missions, and to increase the number of OIOS staff in its investigations divisions. DPKO has proposed that estimates for internal oversight in future 

missions be based on such neutral measures as the complexity, size, and needs of 

the mission. We support those proposals. 

Both OIOS and DPKO are advocating that OIOS create a dedicated investigative 

unit to look into sexual exploitation and abuse allegations. We fully support immediate investigation of any allegations, and agree that OIOS would be the appropriate body to conduct these investigations. 

The creation of an investigative OIOS unit, however, will require the approval of 

the UN General Assembly, beginning with the approval of the Advisory Committee 

on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (or the ACABQ) and the Fifth Committee. We have already begun seeking support for this initiative from other member states, including discussing the cost of this program. This important step would 

help to deter sexual abuse in the future and ensure that UN peacekeepers uphold 

the highest standards of behavior towards those they are supposed to protect, as 

well as help rebuild confidence and trust in UN peacekeeping. 

Another positive and recent development is the ACABQ recommendation that the 

Secretariat develop a comprehensive policy for investigating matters relating to sexual exploitation and sexual abuse for all UN activities, not just peacekeeping. It also 

recommended that the Secretariat analyze and request the resources it needs to ensure accountability and enforcement of the policy. 

3. Outsource Internal Oversight at Small UN Agencies to OIOS 

A third reform that would help create a culture of accountability would be for the 

smaller UN specialized agencies to outsource their internal oversight activities to 

OIOS. Such a step makes fiscal sense. As the 2003 theft of $3 million by an employee of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) shows, there is an urgent 

need to bolster internal oversight at UN specialized agencies. 

The internal audit capacity of WMO has been struggling in its efforts to handle 

this complex investigation, and final resolution of the case is taking far longer than 

expected. WMO member states are now considering a proposal by Switzerland and 

Germany to appoint OIOS as its internal auditor to a two-year pilot program. We 

strongly support this proposal, as do other major UN contributors, and support the 

incorporation of investigative services as well. 

OIOS has an investigations field office already set up in Vienna, which could assist specialized agencies like WMO in uncovering fraud and corruption. Establishing 

independent oversight, rather than creating an internal audit section in each smaller specialized UN agency, is an attractive option. Oversight and investigative services could be acquired on a service agreement basis, which could produce greater 

cost efficiencies throughout the UN system. However, the General Assembly would 

need to grant OIOS this authority. 

4. Reinforce the Secretary-General’s Duty to Waive Immunity 

A fourth reform responds to recent allegations of misconduct by UN officials. We 

welcome the recent commitments of the Secretary-General to ensure the accountability of UN officials who are accused of committing crimes related to the Oil-forFood Program or crimes of sexual abuse and exploitation. 

The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations gives the 

Secretary-General the right and the duty to waive immunity in cases where, in his 

opinion, the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without 

prejudice to the interests of the United Nations. Any UN official who is suspected 

of criminal activity should be fully investigated and tried; those found guilty should 

be punished for their crimes. 

113

5. Avoid Even the Appearance of Conflict of Interest 

Finally, we want UN Staff Regulations and Rules to better impress upon UN personnel that they should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The UN’s 

integrity is important to all its employees and they should even avoid situations 

where a perception of a conflict of interest could exist. 

UN Staff Regulations already state that staff ‘‘shall avoid any action and, in particular, any kind of public pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, 

or on the integrity, independence and impartiality that are required by that status’’ 

(emphasis added). The emphasis is on avoiding inappropriate public pronouncements. Current Staff Regulations also require certain staff to file financial disclosure statements and prohibit conflict-of-interest behaviors, but they do not specifically require them to avoid creating the appearance that they are involved in a conflict-of-interest situation. 

Generally, Staff Regulations and Rules of other UN system organizations with respect to financial disclosure and actual conflict of interest are not as strong as those 

of the UN. We need to strengthen them to avoid problems such as the recent case 

at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), where the Assistant Director General is being investigated for having his wholly owned company accept 

money from the general contractor of the new WIPO building. 

To remedy this potentially damaging loophole, we plan to initiate efforts within 

organizations throughout the UN system to encourage them to strengthen staff 

rules and regulations related to conflict-of-interest behaviors. We welcome the UN 

Secretariat’s efforts to address these situations, as Mr. Malloch Brown has mentioned here. 

Mr. Chairman, these may seem like small steps, but they are nonetheless important if we hope to improve accountability and growing public perceptions that UN 

personnel seem to be above the law. And they can be achieved if there is a will 

among member states to do it. 

Improving Effectiveness 

Moving on to the second major area of reforms we are pushing, improving effectiveness of UN operations, we again have some examples of changes that can maximize the UN’s effectiveness while incorporating greater efficiencies. 

1. Increasing the Efficiency of the UN Public Information Function 

The first reform in this area is one we have also pushed for quite some time: further consolidating UN Information Centers around the world. These centers strive 

to communicate the UN’s message and data around the world. They represent approximately one third of the budget for the UN Department of Public Information, 

yet there is little proof that they are successfully explaining UN programs/concepts 

to local populations. 

A vastly altered world media landscape, changes in the information culture and 

revolutionary advances in information and communication technologies should compel the UN Secretariat to look for more up-to-date solutions. Some may ask how the 

Internet can reach disadvantaged populations in developing nations, but the current 

set-up of UN offices in capital cities does no better. 

A model for this reform is the successful consolidation of the UN Information Centers in Western European countries. Nine of them were successfully consolidated 

into a regional hub in Brussels. There is no sound rationalization for not duplicating 

this effort in other regions where it is feasible, including in the United States. In 

most cases, that would mean creating a UN regional information hub in the most 

strategic location. Resources could then be redirected to these hubs to strengthen 

their ability to inform the publics in their regions about UN activities. 

Such consolidation is consistent with reform proposals the Secretary-General himself put forth in September 2002. We also think OIOS should be encouraged to conduct a comprehensive study of these centers and the efficiency of their parent Department of Public Information as a whole, providing much needed oversight of 

their activities. 

2. Expanding Outsourcing and Automation of Translation Services 

A second reform that would improve effectiveness is expanding the use of 

outsourcing and automation of translation services, which in the current budget cost 

nearly $200 million. 

These expenses could be greatly reduced by outsourcing translation services. Moving translation work out of New York could significantly reduce overhead costs for 

staff and rent while creating jobs in developing countries. Given current technology 

and time zone differences, we could achieve a virtual 24/7 operation, whereby work 

114

sent from New York to a remote site during their core business hours could be completed overnight and then returned to New York for review. 

Competitive bids could be used to determine the most cost effective and efficient 

commercial providers of these services. 

3. Reduce the Cost, Frequency and Duration of Conferences and Meetings 

A third reform to improve effectiveness would be to reduce the frequency and du- ration of UN conferences and meetings. At $565 million a biennium, Mr. Chairman, 

the UN’s budget for conference services is the single largest section in the UN budget. 

With such a high cost, we think member states ought to be able to pre-approve 

the Secretariat’s plans for each conference and meeting’s agenda and desired outcomes. Right now, it is very difficult to assess or change the frequency and duration 

of UN meetings organized around a certain theme. In addition, we think all official 

UN meetings should be aware of the possibility of running over the allotted times, 

since verbatim records of meetings cost approximately $8,000 per hour. 

Additional potential costs savings measures we are looking at include: (1) requiring that all inter-sessional meetings of main or subordinate UN bodies be funded 

through voluntary contributions or not held at all; (2) running all official UN meetings concurrent with the contractual schedule of the interpreters; (3) establishing 

a rational approach to choosing the number and frequency of meetings with emphasis on priority issues; and (4) stopping the practice of giving delegates of member 

states and certain UN experts an additional 40 percent above the per diem amount 

senior UN officials receive when they travel to UN meetings. 

Boosting Relevance 

Mr. Chairman, the last section of reform proposals I would like to mention today 

are aimed at boosting the relevance of the UN’s work. 

1. Use and Expand Authority to Redeploy Posts 

In December 2003, we were able to get the General Assembly to approve a pilot 

program that gave him authority to redeploy up to 50 posts from lower to higher 

priority areas. He is also required to report on the results of this project to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) during the 

60th General Assembly this fall. 

This pilot program was an important first step towards giving the Secretary-General greater flexibility so as to strategically align and realign budgetary resources 

with human resources. 

We would have liked to be at the point where we could pursue expanding this 

program, but instead I have to report how very disappointed we are that the Secretary-General has not yet utilized this new and important authority. 

Because we had placed a high priority on getting him this authority, we feel compelled now to oppose any staffing increases in the Secretariat until such time as the 

Secretary-General reprograms all of these 50 positions. For that matter, the overall 

presumption must be that any new posts should come from eliminating ineffective 

or obsolete positions. We will encourage the Secretary-General to use this authority 

so that we can again consider expanding it. 

2. Review to Determine Usefulness of Program Mandates 

Finally, to boost the relevance of the UN’s work, we are seeking a regular review 

for relevance of all program mandates with a designated timeframe for review of 

all new mandates. 

There is a perception that once authorized and created, UN regular budget programs and activities continue indefinitely. Sadly, the reality is very close to this perception. That’s why we and other major contributors continue to support the adoption of time-limiting provisions whereby each new program and activity would include a termination date. This idea was included, of course, in the Helms-Biden arrears and reform legislation. 

Under this approach, each UN program and activity would end unless the General 

Assembly specifically adopted a resolution to extend it. This is the approach the Security Council takes in authorizing peacekeeping operations; each mandate includes 

fixed terms, must be renewed in order to continue, and has a defined exit strategy. 

To deal with UN activities already authorized, other major contributors and we 

support reviewing all existing mandates 10 years and older for continued relevance. 

Though this reform will not be easy to achieve, now that the Secretary-General 

has included this concept in his report, other countries that may take the effort 

more seriously. 

In addition, in the last several weeks, we have met with the group of major UN 

contributors to work to advance a set of management and administrative reforms. 

115

Together this group of 14 countries—the Geneva Group—contributes 80 percent of 

the UN’s budgets. 

We agreed that it is essential that, whatever set of reforms the UN considers later 

this year, matters of management, administration, personnel, accountability, transparency, and oversight must be included. We are communicating to the SecretaryGeneral to express our belief that management and administrative reforms are critical to achieving the vision of the UN Charter. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, the United Nations is indeed in need of reform to make it more 

efficient, effective, and responsive to the challenges that the world lays on its doorstep. Budgetary discipline, managerial accountability, and transparency are critical 

to reform. The United States must continue to play a leadership role in this reform 

effort. 

Reforming the United Nations is an evolutionary process—it is not a one-time 

event. We believe that pushing for continued incremental reforms is an effective 

way to make changes that will last and we now have an opportunity to make far 

greater progress than ever before. 

We will press on, insisting that steps be taken to create a culture of accountability 

and integrity, improve effectiveness, and boost the relevance of the UN’s work. The 

success of any larger institutional reform discussed in Cluster Groups in New York 

and addressed at a High Level Event as the next General Assembly convenes in 

September will depend on it. And we will closely monitor the UN’s progress in implementing management improvements and reforms. 

Mr. Chairman, the momentum for management and oversight reform at the UN 

is clearly growing, and you can be assured we will continue striving to make the 

UN a more effective and responsible partner in advancing peace, development, and 

human dignity. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Lagon. Congressman Smith, to begin the round of questions? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me just ask 

you, Mr. Lagon, what, in your view, is the most effective leverage 

the United States can use to effectuate change at the United Nations? Obviously, we are engaging in, I think, a very robust dialogue. I think the fact that we had a representative to the UN here 

today and at previous briefings is a very hopeful sign of better cooperation and understanding on both sides. 

But, you know, I mentioned earlier today with the previous 

round of questioning, that one of the ways the Inspector General 

Office was established was with at least the withholding of some 

UN funding. Obviously there are two schools of thought on that 

and I was wondering what the Administration’s view was on having that kind of language in legislation? 

And secondly, what is the Administration’s position on the independence of the OIOS and a separate line item in the United Nation’s budget for the organization? In your view, are we making 

progress in New York on that, if you could talk about that? And 

what specifically is the UN or the U.S. proposal that you just referenced in your oral statement with regards to that agency? 

Mr. LAGON. Sure. Let me start with OIOS, if I might. We worked 

with the Geneva Group, which is the 14 nations that together pay 

both in the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget 80 percent 

of the bills and as a collective proposal. We were looking at ways 

to strengthen OIOS. The first step we got was the automatic release of reports at the demand of a single member state and then 

left on the table was a proposal from last winter to look at independent funding. And it is being studied in the UN. 

116

And we need to go with those states, using the leverage of the 

major contributors to the UN, saying that OIOS should not have 

to go say ‘‘Mother may I?’’ to those Secretariat officials whom they 

are responsible for overseeing, to see whether there should be a 

boost in funding or personnel for them to do their work. There 

should be more direct access to the Fifth Committee and the General Assembly. And so that is what we are going to push for in general. 

Now you asked a larger question about what is most effective. 

Leverage is important and one just has to look at, in legislation, 

whether certifications or conditions for reform are achievable ones. 

They need to be important and they need to be within reach. I 

know there is legislation that is being developed in the House 

International Relations Committee and will be in discussion with 

both the Republican and Democratic sides about that. We are going 

to review it. But that is going to be a major touchstone for our view 

on it. 

Mr. SMITH. And just one final question, with regards to the reform of the UN human rights structure, is it your sense that we 

will see a morphing of the UN Human Rights Commission—or 

maybe a scrapping of it would be a better way of looking at it—

to this new structure? What, in your sense, is the timeline when 

that will be up and running? 

Mr. LAGON. Well, there is a lot of momentum. There is clearly 

a lot of interest that has been created by the Secretary-General’s 

proposal. The Western countries have shown the greatest enthusiasm about it. There are misgivings on the part of the developing 

world as to what it would be like. Perhaps part of what is vexing 

to us about how the Commission on Human Rights is doing business as it stands is just fine with some nations. 

I do not think you will likely get farther than a framework for 

what the new body might look like by the September High-Level 

Event in which a group of reform proposals will be examined. But 

our hope is that we will dig into the details of what a Human 

Rights Council would be like to replace the Commission on Human 

Rights sooner rather than later. I think that we should strike while 

the iron is hot and we are going to need to make sure that it does 

not turn out to be just basically a slightly smaller version of the 

very same thing, with the same problems. 

Mr. SMITH. Is it likely that the rapporteur system will be reformed in that as well? I will give you an example. When I was 

with you at the Human Rights Commission a couple of months ago, 

couple of weeks ago, really, and in previous meetings there, I have 

always made a point of meeting with various rapporteurs. This 

time it was with Mr. Nowak, who is a very well respected 

Rapporteur on Torture. He has been invited by the Chinese to visit 

the People’s Republic of China, and the concern is that his terms 

of reference will not be realized, and he will not have unfettered 

access. He could find himself retaliated against with beatings by 

the guards in the prisons. 

And yet the Chinese are using that, the fact that they have invited him, for all of the diplomatic leverage they could possibly get, 

by saying, ‘‘Look, we have invited the rapporteur to come.’’ It gives 

China a certain bridge to the next crisis and it is a game that realVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
117

ly needs to end. How do we strengthen the rapporteur system so 

that when a rapporteur is required to go to a country like Cuba, 

the special rep can get in to do the work that they certainly should 

be doing. It seems to me that the stonewalling by a country which 

has a poor record carries no penalty. I am not sure what that penalty could be, but perhaps you might have some thoughts. 

Mr. LAGON. Well, one thing we ought to make sure first is that 

any change in the apparatus of the UN on human rights issues 

does not take us backwards on rapporteurs. We need to get those 

rapporteurs, who are the crucial element of any country-specific 

resolutions, into those countries so those games are no longer 

played. 

And a part of this work can be helped by the High Commissioner 

for Human Rights. There is a larger consensus in the discussion of 

UN reform about building the capacity of the Office of the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights. There is a role that she can play 

in rationalizing the respective duties of different Rapporteurs for 

Torture, for Arbitrary Detention, and so on, but also, she can, I 

think, assist in giving them a little moral adrenalin to keep at it. 

Because, to tell you the truth, a lot of these rapporteurs have a 

whole menu of countries they can see and sometimes their will to 

be like a dog on a bone on a particular country with a repressive 

regime may not be as substantial as we might think. We need to 

make sure that the discussion of creating peer review, sitting down 

and looking at each other’s record in a new Human Rights Council 

is not an excuse to replace country specific resolutions, which are 

the kinds of resolutions that create rapporteurs. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, 

what is the position of the Administration on the withholding of 

dues if this Committee should come forward with legislation that 

incorporates withholding of dues, a percentage thereof, whatever? 

I am certainly not supportive of that. What is the position of the 

Administration? 

Mr. LAGON. In general, we welcome legislation that shows that 

the Congress stands strongly behind the Administration’s efforts 

for reforms. Specifically, to answer your question about 

withholdings, the Executive Branch has made the request for appropriations and their authorization for our dues for both the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget, and——

Mr. DELAHUNT. So can I——

Mr. LAGON [continuing]. We stand by that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. So let me be clear, because I think it is important that we do be clear and that we do not equivocate. It is the 

position of the Administration that the United States should pay 

its appropriate dues to the United Nations, not a maybe, not a percentage, but should pay its full dues to the United Nations. 

Mr. LAGON. It is an obligation we have signed on to. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. I think you were here earlier when 

I vented my frustration. 

Mr. LAGON. I think I am going to be hearing about Oil-for-Food. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You are—actually, it is not about Oil-for-Food. It 

is about the Security Council as opposed to the Secretariat. Let me 

be very clear. I want to state for the record that this was comVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
118

menced in a Democratic Administration and clearly has been continued by a Republican Administration, up to the beginning of the 

war in Iraq. 

But with all the attention and all of the scrutiny of the Oil-forFood Program, the reality is that 75 percent of the illegal, illicit 

revenues that ended up in the pockets of Saddam Hussein that 

supported his regime and all of the nefarious machinations that he 

utilized to suppress the Iraqi people, came from a decision by the 

Security Council to simply ‘‘take note.’’ I guess that is fancy euphemism in diplomatic-speak that I am not familiar with, of the fact 

that while the United Nations had, in the aftermath of the first 

Gulf War, passed a sanctions regime that was rather clear, and 

then when it was violated, made believe that it was not happening. 

I mean, to me, this is truly Alice in Wonderland. Let us pass a 

law, let us see if it is violated and if it is violated, we will take note 

of that. That is absurd. 

Now, it might be beyond me, I am very simple-minded. But I 

really believe that if the American people were really aware of this, 

they would be outraged, because that $8 billion or $9 billion really 

supported the efforts of the Saddam Hussein regime to stay in 

power, oppress the people and purportedly would be utilized to acquire weapons of mass destruction. What happened? 

Mr. LAGON. There are a lot of players here responsible for the siphoning of money off of Oil-for-Food and it is appropriate to look 

at not just UN officials. You noted earlier in the exchange with Mr. 

Malloch Brown that that is a relatively small proportion, but still, 

given the size of the funds, very serious——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right, I understand, but if you could get to my 

question. 

Mr. LAGON. But as far as your question goes, it is a question of 

political will among member states. There is a lot of circumlocution 

in the diplomatic-speak of the Security Council, where you get expressions like ‘‘takes note.’’ But one needs to appreciate that while 

you look at the record of what the United States did along with 

other countries——

Mr. DELAHUNT. But it is not just the United States, it is the entire Security Council. 

Mr. LAGON. The United States has a veto, but at times, a veto 

represents a brake, but not an accelerator pedal to get done what 

needs to be done. If I may? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. 

Mr. LAGON. There are other relevant examples. I mean, the horrors of Sudan, we would be able to——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I do not want to get into Sudan. 

Mr. LAGON. Let me just make a quick point about it. I am not 

trying to divert the issue here. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We do not do filibusters in the House, only over 

in the Senate. 

Mr. LAGON. I used to be a Senate staffer. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Obviously, if the Chairman will indulge me? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROS-LEHTINEN. We will forgive him for that. 

Mr. LAGON. On Sudan, we have not moved as quickly or as thoroughly as we could, because of the same problem of political will. 

119

All this discussion of the Security Council and its apparatus and 

its size is one thing. But ultimately, the political will of states to 

live up to their responsibilities is even more important. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But the point that I am making is, if you are an 

American citizen watching our exchange right now and you realize 

all of a sudden that we have spent countless hours investigating 

the manipulation of a program that implicates maybe $1 billion, 

$1.5 billion, and yet, at the same time, at the same time, we, as 

part of the Security Council, look the other way when it came to 

the allowing of violating a sanction regime that allowed Saddam 

Hussein possibly to stay in power. 

It just does not compute. I believe, you know, Americans, whether they are in the blue States or in the red States——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Lagon, 1 minute to respond. 

Mr. LAGON. We need to look at both. Obviously in the first place, 

we cannot cast aside any wrongdoing done by UN officials to either 

profit themselves or to permit skimming by others. 

But as far as the responsibility of Security Council members 

goes, that deserves attention. We cannot set it aside and we need 

to look at ourselves as well as some other nettlesome members of 

the Security Council. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, without objection, the briefing by 

Mr. Malloch Brown will be printed jointly with the record of this 

hearing and the formal statement by Mr. Malloch Brown will be inserted into the record of the briefing. 

Mr. Smith, for some follow up questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Just one final question, Dr. Lagon. Regarding the 

Secretary-General’s proposed Human Rights Council, could you 

comment on concerns the Administration has regarding whether 

his proposal of a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly is optimal for insuring a high standard of conduct for membership to the 

proposed council? 

Mr. LAGON. You know, we are at the very height of a review of 

trying to figure this out. I mean, one can think on the one hand 

that a two-thirds vote might allow for a blocking one-third to prevent some of the most heinous dictatorships from getting on the 

Human Rights Council, which is, of course, the blotch on the Commission on Human Rights. At the same time, one needs to look at 

whether a two-thirds vote would stop some of the nations from getting on that are most aggressive in the best sense at trying to shed 

light on the human rights situation in repressive regimes. We need 

to figure that out and we need to look at the broader questions on 

the size of the council, the location of the council, and whether peer 

reviews are a good idea. 

But we are close to the point in which we are going to be weighing into the discussions in New York about specifics, not just backing the idea that it is time to scrap a Commission on Human 

Rights which the Secretary-General has described as casting a 

shadow on the reputation of the entire UN system. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Doctor. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Delahunt, 1 minute to close 

this. 

120

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. My good friend Chairman Burton made a 

point about the availability of information. I have had a similar 

problem. I understand there were some 70 contracts that the 661 

Committee or rather the Secretariat brought to the attention of the 

Security Council, the 661 Committee, that claimed that there was 

overpricing. 

I have been asking to see those contracts and receive some sort 

of explanation from both the United States Mission as well as any 

other willing member of the Security Council to explain why, apparently, those warnings were ignored. 

If you have information about those 70 contracts, could you tell 

us? And if you do not, would you be able to provide me with the 

documents and some information regarding them? 

Mr. LAGON. I will have to take your question. I came here today 

prepared to talk about UN management reforms. I do not know the 

answer to that question, but we will take it, because it is a reasonable question, and we will respond to you and the Committee. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MARK P. LAGON, PH.D., TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Attached is a spreadsheet listing the 67 contracts identified as possibly having 

over-priced items. The spreadsheet lists the contract number, the comments from 

the inter-agency review process, the instructions from the Department of State to 

the United States Mission to the UN, and any additional comments from the Office 

of the Iraq Programme (OIP) and/or suppliers. 

Of these 67, nine are not available, as they were not circulated to the committee. 

OIP approved seven of the contracts not circulated. 

Of the remaining 58 contracts the US approved 24 and held 34. Only six of the 

contracts had pricing comments made by the inter-agency reviewers. Of those, three 

were approved and three were held. Only one of the held contracts was put on hold 

for pricing. The contracting supplier later provided an acceptable explanation and 

the hold was released.

121


21309bn.eps
122


21309bo.eps
123


21309bp.eps
124


21309bq.eps
125


21309br.eps
126


21309bs.eps
127


21309bt.eps
128


21309bu.eps
129


21309bv.eps
130


21309bw.eps
131


21309bx.eps
132


21309by.eps
133


21309bz.eps
134


21309ca.eps
135


21309cb.eps
136


21309cc.eps
137


21309cd.eps
138


21309ce.eps
139


21309cf.eps
140


21309cg.eps
141


21309ch.eps
142


21309ci.eps
143


21309cj.eps
144


21309ck.eps
145


21309cl.eps
146


21309cm.eps
147


21309cn.eps
148


21309co.eps
149


21309cp.eps
150


21309cq.eps
151


21309cr.eps
152

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Lagon. 

It was a pleasure having you with us. Thank you. And now we welcome our final panel and we will begin with Ms. Catherine Bertini, 

who has served as United Nations Undersecretary General for 

Management from 2003 to 2005. During her tenure at the United 

Nations, she supervised reform of the Worldwide Security Management System and improved procedures of management of information systems, facilities and human resources. 

In addition, she also made significant strides in improving the 

management of the UN pension fund. Prior to this position, she 

served as the Executive Director of the UN World Food Program. 

We also welcome former Senator Tim Wirth, who is the President 

of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund. Senator Wirth has served as President of the UN Foundation since its 

inception in 1998. From 1993 to 1997, he served as Undersecretary 

of State for Global Affairs. In 1987, he was elected to serve in the 

United States Senate and from 1975 to 1987, he served in this 

body, representing Colorado’s Second Congressional District. We 

welcome both of our witnesses and we ask that you summarize 

your statements and your full statements will be made a part of 

the record. We thank you so much for being here. Ms. Bertini, we 

will start with you. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CATHERINE BERTINI, FORMER UNDER 

SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR MANAGEMENT, UNITED NATIONS, 2003–2005

Ms. BERTINI. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

thank you for the invitation to be here with the Committee today. 

I have known Chairman Hyde for probably 25 years and I salute 

his leadership and appreciate the chance to talk about UN reform. 

Before I do, though, I also want to pay tribute to Senator Wirth 

and the UN Foundation, whom I believe do a very important job 

in terms of providing constructive support to the United Nations, 

both in supporting the United Nations and also in working to improve the United Nations. I thank him and his colleagues for their 

support. 

As you said, Madam Chair, I was an official in the United Nations. However, I am no longer the Undersecretary General for 

Management, so my comments today are my own and I will summarize my paper. 

Reform is extremely important in the UN and has been for some 

time. It always should be important. There are reforms that the 

Secretary-General undertook in 1997, to which several Members 

have referred today and those reforms made some very significant 

changes in how the UN Secretariat and its agencies operate. Another major reform that does not get much attention is the fact 

that the UN has recently reformed its whole security mechanism 

for the security of staff. It has been very significant in an effort to 

provide a better security of staff, a unified management of the security of staff throughout the world and the Secretary-General’s 

proposal was essentially almost all adopted by the General Assembly. And that was a significant reform from the end of last year. 

In coming to speak with you today, I thought of what I might say 

and how I might write my paper. I thought that rather than giving 

153

a litany of either what has been done or what should be done, that 

it might be better to compare my experiences, having been for 10 

years the head of the World Food Program, about 25 percent of 

that time in the UN Secretariat. To try to analyze why things work 

in terms of reform, perhaps more effectively in the World Food Program, and perhaps easier than they do in the Secretariat. 

I have come to three conclusions in terms of differences between 

the two organizations that impact on effectiveness. Voluntary 

versus assessed funding, their governance, and management accountability. 

On funding, the World Food Program (WFP) and many other UN 

agencies like UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNFPA, are primarily 

funded by voluntary contributions from governments. The UN itself 

and other major UN agencies are primarily funded by assessed contributions. To me, the difference is the following. At WFP, all of the 

staff members understood how important it was to meet the objectives of the organization, to not only establish priorities, but to be 

judged on how well we met them. It was very much a results-based 

organization and it had to be. We had to be efficient, we had to be 

effective, or the donors could find other places for their money in 

a very competitive field where NGOs, bilateral government programs like USAID, and other UN agencies are big competitors. 

So the organization had to be very, very strong in terms of meeting efficiency standards in order to continue to get support. I believe that it is not a coincidence that most people would consider 

those agencies to be the best run in the United Nations. I believe 

the voluntary nature of the contributions has a lot to do with it. 

The Secretariat and other agencies are funded by assessments. 

The budgets are always going to be roughly the same. They may 

go up or down a little bit and there are long debates among member states over potential changes in the budget, but essentially the 

budgets are going to be roughly the same. This changes the way 

priorities are set, making sure that governments and entities have 

essentially kept what they have. It is protection of what they have 

and it changes the way one thinks. It even changes, I think, how 

staff operates. 

There have been some references to the bureaucracy and the 

staff. I think the staff in the United Nations are very committed, 

very dedicated staff who work very hard. By the way, under very 

difficult circumstances, certainly those who are in the field and 

dangerous locations have difficult circumstances, but even those 

working in New York who have to read the newspaper everyday 

about the next bad story, are certainly disheartened. 

My point is that the staff lose interest in being creative when 

they have assessed contributions and when the member states seldom make significant changes. I would also say that in the context 

of that kind of budgeting, the member states don’t always and don’t 

often have a high priority for actual performance. I believe if they 

did, for instance, an entity called the International Civil Service 

Commission would have been reformed a long time ago. This group, 

whose acronym is ICSC, was requested to be reviewed and potentially reformed. The request was made by the Secretary-General 

who appointed a commission to look into reform of this body. The 

group that looked into reform recommended a modest set of proVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:28 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\051905\21309.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
154

posals for reforming this commission, starting with the fact that 

members should be qualified to serve on the commission. The commission opposes these reforms and this has been languishing in the 

General Assembly for almost a year. 

So what then is my proposal for the Committee’s consideration? 

I certainly think that over time that the United Nations itself 

should consider having more agencies and entities be voluntarily 

funded. Years ago, there was a proposal made by the Nordic countries that all agencies should have a base of assessed funding and 

then the majority of their funding come from voluntary contributions. That would be another thing that perhaps could be looked at 

from an earlier reform proposal by those governments. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bertini follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. CATHERINE BERTINI, FORMER UNDER SECRETARYGENERAL FOR MANAGEMENT, UNITED NATIONS, 2003–2005

Chairman Hyde, Members: Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Committee. I have known the Chairman for over twenty five years, and have met with 

several other members. I also have appeared before the Committee several times in 

my previous capacity as Executive Director of the UN World Food Program, a position I held prior to serving as Under Secretary General for Management. WFP 

worked with the committee toward our mission of ending hunger, specifically in Afghanistan, North Korea, the Balkans, the Horn of Africa, and Latin America. Also, 

twice, I met with committee members, under Chairman Gilman, during their visits 

to Rome. 

After almost twelve and a half years of service to the UN, I officially retired on 

April 30, 2005, so I appear before you today as a former UN official. (Please note, 

though, that I still chair the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition.) The 

views I am about to express are my own. 

REFORM IS POSSIBLE

REFORM is a perpetual buzzword at the United Nations, as it should be. REFORM has been a continuous refrain during my entire time as a senior UN official. 

Sometimes, reform measures are successful, sometimes not. It is never easy to move 

a large organization like the UN, any more than it is easy to reform an entity of 

the US government, but it is important to maintain an atmosphere of continual reform. And, it is important to believe that reform CAN occur, and that it can be very 

constructive. 

One recent example achieved under Secretary General Kofi Annan’s direction was 

reform of the UN’s world wide security operation. Even before the tragic bombing 

of the UN office in Baghdad, he had commissioned a review of the UN security operations. The review was broader than that which was requested by the General Assembly, as he felt that there needed to be a review of all aspects of security of staff 

in the UN system. 

As you may know, three months after the bombing, he asked me to serve as acting security coordinator, a position I held for sixteen months, in addition to my 

responsibilites as USG for management. Working with the Secretary General and 

the Deputy Secretary General and with UN Security professionals, we developed a 

comprehensive, unified security management system for the UN. Then, we spent 

many hours, days and nights and weekends, working with the governments who 

participate in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, as they considered the 

Secretary General’s proposal. All but a few components of his proposal were approved. The new system brings together all the security entities of the Secretariat 

under one management, and clarifies the command and control functions for security of staff in every field location for all UN agencies and staff. 

COMPARISONS

The United Nations is not just the Secretariat in New York, but it is made of 

many organizations—called specialized agencies, funds, and programmes. The headquarters of these organizations are placed around the world and their operations 

are, for the most part, world wide. Most are directed by governing bodies which are 

independent from the General Assembly. Therefore, the Secretary General 

excercizes moral authority but has no legal authority over them. 

155

The UN’s scope is immense and mostly not contraversial. For instance, it impacts 

on how international mail is delivered, on air and sea transportation, intellectual 

property, climate matters, environmental issues, food safety, and health. It influences labor law, protects refugees and children and mothers. It works in developing 

countries to end hunger, to mitigate the devestating impacts of natural and man 

made disasters. 

There are several different models for how the agencies operate. Having directed 

one organization—WFP—for ten years, and having been at the UN secretariat for 

a quarter of that time, I thought it might be useful to look at the question: Why 

were we able to reform the World Food Program into what some called a model of 

UN reform, building many of its systems into state of the art operations, and why 

it is so difficult to do some of the same kinds of things at the UN Secretariat? I 

believe that there are several factors that make a difference. 

1. Funding 

Most UN funds and programs are voluntarily funded. The Secretariat and many 

UN agencies are funded by assessments of Member States. 

Voluntary funding creates an entirely different atmosphere at WFP than at the 

UN. At WFP, every staff member knows that we have to be as efficient, accountable, 

transparent, and results oriented as is possible. If we are not, donor governments 

can take their funding elsewhere in a very competitive world among UN agencies, 

NGOs, and bilateral governments. The Member States—donor and recipient governments alike—know this too, and therefore, work together, with the WFP secretariat, 

to approve governance procedures and operational policies that support these efficiency efforts. In addition, since WFP never knows, at any given time, exactly what 

the budget will be, and since WFP has to respond to emergencies within 24 hours, 

the governing body gives the secretariat flexibility in managing expenditures and 

creating the management organization of the program. 

Assessed funding creates a different set of priorities among governments. There 

will be a certain level of budget available, even though member states quibble about 

marginal differences (I have seen delegates argue for days and days over one post). 

The bottom line is that the budgets will be at worst, static, so prime issues become 

protection of existing interests within the secretariat budget. Seldom is performance 

a key criteria. 

If it were, for example, then the General Assembly would have, by now, reformed 

the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC). This is the commission that sets 

standards for all UN civil servants world wide. The Secretary General requested a 

review of ICSC operations, and as a result, a modest set of reform proposals were 

made. They include the recommendation that members elected by the GA to this 

body be QUALIFIED to hold the positions. The ICSC opposes all the recommendations and they have been stalled in the GA for almost a year. 

Staff members in the Secretariat are, generally, as dedicated as those at voluntarily funded agencies, but it is alot more difficult for them to be as motivated to 

be creative, both because of funding and because of governance. Therefore, over 

time, as in any bureaucracy, initiatives are less common. 

It is a common view of the system that UNDP,UNICEF,UNFPA, UNHCR, and 

WFP are probably the best run UN agencies. It is no coincidence that they are all 

voluntarily funded (except for a small portion of UNHCR’s budget). 

2. Governance 

WFP (and UNICEF, UNDP/UNFPA) have 36 members on their boards. The 191 

member states, set the policy that there be 36 members on each board, and they 

also choose which member states serve on each board. For themselves, however, for 

committees to review the work of Secretariat entities, their formats are all made 

up of committees of the whole. In other words, to review the UN Secretariat budget 

(which is smaller than those of WFP and UNDP), 191 members can participate in 

committee, and again when the General Assembly meets to affirm the committees’ 

work. This often creates a deadlock in the committees. 

Imagine what the work of the House International Relations Committee would be 

like if all members of congress were members of the committee. With so many members, it becomes impossible to concentrate on broad policy issues, so member states 

work to preserve what is important to them and they end up micromanaging the 

operations of the secretariat. For instance, whether an existing position gets the upgrade proposed by the Secretary General usually becomes a high priority for the delegation of the country from which the incumbent staff member comes. 

Governments are not immune to similar behavior in funds and programs. On one 

occasion, a government cut its funding by 20% to WFP,specifically to show their displeasure because I did not hire one of their citizens in a high level position. As this 

156

was done during the time when the US was withholding some of its dues to the 

UN, the other government told me that they were following the lead of MY country 

on withholding funds when they didn’t like UN actions. Eventually, we they returned to their earlier contribution level. 

There is another governance difference between member states in NY and in 

other UN headquarters cities like Rome and Geneva. That is in the background of 

the people that governments assign to these postings. The people sent to Rome are 

from agricultural ministries or aid/development organizations. They are more technical and they are commited by their professions to a certain set of substantive 

issues. 

Many of the people sent by governments to UN missions in NY are politicians. 

They are up and comers who have either held very important positions in their governments or who are on their way up. For instance, the current foreign ministers 

of the Russian Federation and the Palestinian Authority left their positions as Ambassadors to the UN in NY, to take up their current jobs. 

The same practice is true for more junior diplomats as well. Rising stars often 

are posted for at least one diplomatic term to NY. One ambassador told me that 

his country sends its high performers to New York and its poor performers to 

Nairobi (Poor Kenya!). 

This contributes to the political nature of the decision making. The UN deals with 

many ‘‘political’’ issues, of course, but when delegates make political points using 

issues like security of staff or personnel policies, that is regrettable but not unexpected as they are making their ‘‘marks’’ to impress their capitols. 

3. Management Accountability 

Although the budget of WFP is larger than that of the Secretariat, most of the 

former is food and transport. Most of the latter is staff. The staff are located not 

only in NYC, but also in Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi, Santiago, Beirut, Bangkok, Addis 

Ababa, and in a variety of information centers. 

On paper, there are over thirty people who report to the Secretary General. They 

are Under Secretaries General, heads of funds and programs, executive secretaries 

of regional commissions, and various other positions. It is not realistic, in any organization, for any one person to have that many reports. 

Secretary General Annan made an important change in his 1997 reforms when 

he created a cabinet style management setting, holding weekly meetings with many 

of his direct reports. In addition, he organized executive committees—working 

groups—of senior people to regularly coordinate actions in specific areas. 

As the UN has grown and the Member States have added responsibilities, more 

people have been added as direct reports to the Secretary General. They include 

Under Secretaries General for Africa, Least Developed Countries, Children in 

Armed Conflict, Security, Disarmament, the Inspector General, and even the Oil for 

Food Program. 

There is no system for managing this far flung group of senior staff. As a result, 

the overburdened office of the Secretary General picks and chooses issues in which 

it gets involved. Delegation of responsibilities is then sometimes unclear. This system predates the current Secretary General, but as more functions are added to the 

UN mandate, more pressure is put on the process. 

PROPOSALS

So, what reform proposals would make sense to make some of the process more 

workable? Here are a few. 

Funding: 

As many UN organizational units as possible, including all operational and coordination bodies, should be fully voluntarily funded. This includes but is not limited 

to: OCHA, OHCHR, UNHCR, UNCTAD, UNEP, UNRWA, Habitat, and the regional 

economic commissions. All the secretariat departments should be reviewed with the 

idea of creating a base of funding through assessments and a portion of the funding 

from voluntary contributions. Having more entities funded voluntarily will create an 

incentive structure for performance and would streamline the regular budget. 

Governance: 

Committees of the General Assembly should be reestablished using the same principle as that which governs parliaments and congress. Each committee should have 

a sub-set of member states (I recommend 36) as members, each elected on a rotating 

basis for three year terms. 

The inter-governmental machinery should also be reviewed. Between the GA and 

ECOSOC there are some 300 subsidiary bodies. They all ask for multiple studies 

157

and reports that help keep the bureaucracy very busy. Repetition should be eliminated (ie Human Rights discussed at the Commission, ECOSOC, the Third Committee of the GA, and the General Assembly). 

Mandates of all UN agencies of all types should be reviewed to determine current 

relevance, effectiveness, and to avoid duplications. A major review and consultation 

with independent organizational experts could conduct such a review. (This would 

need support from all independent agency governing bodies.) 

DPKO, the UN’s Peacekeeping operation, should have a formal governance structure responsible for its oversight and direction. The operational roles of the Department of Political Affairs should also be under this new structure, or delegated to 

UNDP. DPKO is a huge operational department. It’s current budget is far larger 

than that of the Secretariat, yet it operates institutionally like a staff department. 

The Security Council, which sets its mandates, is not, nor should it be, an oversight 

body. 

Management Accountability: 

Within the Secretariat, clear reporting relationships and lines of authority must 

be created. It is not possible for all Under Secretary General level officials to report 

to the Secretary General. All senior officials should be held accountable for the annual performance of their organizations, which should be measured against goals. 

The responsibilities of positions at the USG and ASG levels should be reviewed 

by outside experts to insure that the levels are commensurate with the responsibilities. Where appropriate, levels should be downgraded once current incumbents depart. 

Mandatory intensive training programs on management,ethics,and UN regulations/procedures should be organized for all senior officials. 

All UN staff serving throughout the world should receive the same salaries and 

allowances as all others serving in similar conditions. Currently, though the salaries 

are standard, the other allowances vary by organization, causing parity issues, especially in field assignments. 

All UN staff at the D–1 level and above, including temporary and dollar a year 

contractors, should complete robust financial disclosure forms. Approval of such 

forms, that would help guard against conflicts of interest, should be a condition of 

employment. 

The role of EVALUATION with in the UN system should be reviewed with the 

objective of insuring effectiveness and avoiding duplication. An external entity 

should review the evaluation roles of the OIOS, the Joint Inspection Unit, the External Board of Auditors, and other appropriate functions. 

Other Recommendations: 

The International Civil Service Commission should be reengineered. At a minimum, the reform proposals currently on the table should be adopted. 

Conference Services should have goals for gradual outsourcing of much of its 

work, including having translation work done from countries of origin of the language and from homes of staff or consultants. 

Real mobility should be put in place, with staff members transferring to and from 

NY, not just on temporary mission assignments. Promotions should not be options 

for professional staff who are not mobile. 

The Secretary General should have funding available to offer buyouts to those 

staff who are not mobile and to staff whose departments are downsized. 

CONCLUSION

Twelve plus years at the UN has made me understand, from an intimate professional perspective, the critical importance of the United Nations in the world today. 

I stand ready to work in a constructive manner wherever appropriate, to help 

strengthen its effectiveness and operational efficiency. 

I trust that the committee will make forceful proposals that would,if they were 

to be adopted by the UN, make a significant contribution to reform. I hope that 

those proposals are made as guidance to the US Department of State, recognizing 

the challenges of achieving certain measures, and with flexibility available to US 

representatives. 

This year is a critical year for the UN, with a Heads of State Summit planned 

for September and scheduled to make decisions on the next major UN reforms. 

Preparations for this event has been on-going, with member states well into the 

process of working out their collective views on a whole variety of issues. American 

leadership is crucial to this process. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I stand ready to answer 

your questions, and to work with you in the future.

158

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much and part of our legislation includes the move from assessed to voluntary funding, because 

we have more fiscal accountability. We know that that will be a difficult part of our legislation to implement, but a very important 

one. Thank you, Ms. Bertini. 

Senator Wirth, it is a pleasure to have you with us. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, 

PRESIDENT, UN FOUNDATION 

Mr. WIRTH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you 

very much. I am delighted to be here and particularly to share the 

dais with Catherine Bertini. We will miss her a great deal at the 

United Nations. She did a wonderful job at the World Food Program and in probably the most difficult job, being the Undersecretary for Management. I hope you look very carefully at her recommendations. I had the great pleasure of reading over those before this hearing and she, as usual, makes a great deal of sense. 

It is a pleasure to be back in this building where I spent 12 very 

happy years and see a lot of old friends, particularly Congressman 

Lantos. Thank you for your continuing leadership. 

The pressure and leadership from the Committee on the part of 

the U.S. position in promoting reform in the UN is absolutely essential. You have to realize that to the UN, as has been said before, the U.S. is an indispensable partner. We are its parent, we 

are its host, we are its greatest beneficiary and I think we have 

to keep that in mind. Americans know that. We do a great deal of 

public opinion work, Madam Chair, on behalf of the UN. It is clear 

that over the near 60-year history of the United Nations, strong 

support continues within the American public. Well over 70 percent 

of the public over this time support the U.S. and support the U.S. 

strongly, support the UN and support it strongly, want to have a 

stronger, not a weaker, UN. The public wants the UN to help share 

the burden relative to a whole set of programs that the United 

States public wants. Refugees, the food program, human rights, climate change issues, the empowerment of women. This is a baby 

that we nurtured, and it is absolutely essential that we help to 

bring it up to realize its promise. 

Five comments on where we are today. This is a unique moment 

for reform. I have never seen, in the time that I have been in and 

out of the UN, so many people lined up for reform. This is a new 

time. People say, ‘‘Well, why is this different from what has happened before?’’ Well, it is different. The Secretariat is behind it. 

Clearly the leadership of the UN is behind it. Its constituent elements are behind it. You feel that the Administration wants a 

stronger UN, not a weakened UN. I think everybody wants this to 

happen. So I think that is the answer over and over and over again 

to people who say, ‘‘Why is it going to happen now?’’ Well, the climate is a very different one. 

Second, as has been noted this morning, U.S. leadership is absolutely critical. If the U.S. leads, it happens. If the UN demurs, it 

does not happen. That is the history of the UN in a nutshell. We 

are, again, the most important partner here and we are also the 

greatest beneficiary. 

159

Third, the U.S. should be an example for reform. If we are going 

to lecture the UN, and we are going to pressure the UN, and we 

are going to talk to the UN about reform, let us make sure that 

we are being very careful about having our own backyard sorted 

out. For example, we ought to get rid of the effects of the Stockman 

amendment. If you remember, nearly 20 years ago for a budgetary 

slight of hand, we in the United States Congress allowed the Administration to defer its payments every year for a year. So we are 

constantly behind. The rest of the world has to pick up our debt. 

We run into debt at the UN every year. We should clean that up. 

We should help to fund needed changes. Lots of discussion about 

OIOS. Change is very important, but it is going to cost money to 

do it. There is discussion about the need to change the personnel 

system and do buyouts, give the Secretary-General the authority to 

hire and the authority to fire. That initially costs money. Any modern organization knows that a buyout costs money. 

Peacekeeping. We should do a much better job of keeping the 

Congress and the Administration closely tied together on peacekeeping decisions. The Administration will make decisions at the 

UN on peacekeeping and, unfortunately, Members of Congress, 

Members of the Appropriations Committee are often here saying, 

‘‘Wait a minute, how about us? We have to fund this somewhere 

along the line.’’ It is absolutely essential that there be a much 

tighter set of facts that go back and forth between the Congress 

and the State Department in particular. 

Finally, on the withholding of funds, there has been much discussion about this. I think my own view is that the history of this is 

that it causes very significant problems. Congressman Smith 

talked about the time when OIOS was created, a very good time. 

But I would also say that occurred at a time when the United 

States Government’s policy was to try to limit the amount of money 

that we were paying for peacekeeping from 30 percent down to 27 

percent and of the regular dues, from, I think, 25 down to 22. That 

was the number one issue that we had in the U.S. Government. 

Because of the withholding of funds, the United States Government had an enormous backlog, more than $1 billion in the regular 

budget, close to or well over $1 billion for peacekeeping. We were 

the largest scofflaw at the UN because of this policy of withholding 

funds and that made it very difficult for us to accomplish the reforms that were really central to what we wanted to do. 

My own thought, Mr. Chairman, is that we probably get a lot 

more done when Madeleine Albright goes to North Carolina or 

when Mark Malloch Brown comes here today or, if it happens and 

you all would want to do it, you take your Committee to the UN. 

You know, it is that kind of exchange, that kind of understanding, 

that kind of bending back and forth that probably is going to get 

a great deal more done than a withholding of funds. 

Fourth, it is essential that reforms be targeted. People have to 

understand the General Assembly is one package. The Secretary of 

Security Council is another, within the Secretariat is a third. You 

know, a single blunt instrument is not going to get to all of those 

places. 

And finally, that the reform effort be, as I think everybody 

agrees, robust and comprehensive. In my testimony, and I will 

160

close with this, I support, as I think most people do, the work of 

the High-Level Panel and the Secretary-General’s report, the 

Human Rights Commission, the dramatic change for the High 

Commissioner, which has to be done. Full inclusion of Israel, that 

has begun. This Secretary-General has been very good on this 

issue, really moving the ball. 

We just had, as Congressman Lantos knows, last week a very 

important meeting of the AJC at the UN. The first time that kind 

of leadership from the Jewish communities from around the world 

had been at the UN. Very important to do. 

The Democracy Fund is important, the Peace Building Commission is important. Catherine Bertini has a lot of very good ideas on 

personnel, OIOS, empowering the Deputy Secretary-General and so 

on. You should pay a lot of attention to her ideas. 

DPI is a continuing problem. It is not dissimilar, Mr. Chairman, 

of the problem of public diplomacy that we have right here in the 

United States. Public diplomacy at our State Department is a 

mess. That is what Karen Hughes is being asked to come in and 

sort out. It is not dissimilar from the DPI problem. Both of them 

demand very significant attention. The State Department and the 

UN are political institutions that demand very careful constituency 

building. The UN does a terrible job of it, so does our State Department. We really have to reform both of those. 

Final suggestions. The U.S. Government should be sure to promote its very best people in such a way that they work at the UN 

in the State Department, that they work in human rights, that 

they work on refugee issues, that they work on women’s issues. 

Right now, as Congressman Lantos has been working on this issue 

for a long time, right now if you are in the State Department and 

a young foreign service officer, you get promoted by being in a regional bureau. You get promoted by working on political affairs. 

Real men and real women do not do refugees or do science or do 

human rights and that has to change if, in fact, we are going to 

get the best people into these very important non-traditional but 

new, modern, 21st century assignments. 

Finally, going along with that, I think you all can encourage the 

U.S. Government to fund the junior professional officers at the UN. 

There is an opportunity to bring in a wave of bright, young Americans into the UN and that cannot be done within the limitations 

of personnel. This is a way of bringing in our own management intern program in the government here, and for a very small amount 

of money, we can make a great deal of difference in the future. 

Again, thanks to this Committee and a lot of people here know 

a lot about this set of issues and your support, your continuing advocacy, is very important and we look forward to helping in any 

way we can to accomplish the goals that you have laid out and that 

the Secretary-General has laid out as well. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lantos, Congressman Delahunt. 

Pleasure to be here. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wirth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, PRESIDENT, UN 

FOUNDATION

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lantos and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the important topic of how 

161

we can strengthen and modernize the UN to better meet the challenges of the 21st 

century. 

The UN Foundation, where I serve as President, is a function of Ted Turner’s philanthropy. It came into being in 1997 at a time of significant crisis in the U.S.-UN 

relationship. As you will remember, at that time the U.S. had more than $1 billion 

in arrears to the UN and we were substantially behind on our peacekeeping obligations as well. Working over the next two-and-a-half years with Senators Helms and 

Biden, and then on the Helms-Biden legislation with Ambassador Holbrooke and 

Ambassador Negroponte, and with significant personal funds (31 million dollars) 

from Mr. Turner which covered the transition costs at the UN, Helms-Biden became 

a reality. Mr. Chairman, I also want to recognize the strong leadership and commitment of this committee, which was critical to getting the Helms-Biden payments released by Congress. 

The UN Foundation’s mission reflects the breadth and depth of the responsibil- ities the world has asked the UN to undertake. We have a budget of about $120 

million a year. Fifty million comes from Mr. Turner; the rest comes from a wide variety of public and private partners for whom we are a useful portal and catalyst 

for engaging people to work with the UN and UN system. For example, we have 

brought in a number of private sector partners ranging from Vodafone to The Times 

of India, Nike, and Coca-Cola. 

We focus substantively on children’s health, with the World Health Organization 

and UNICEF. Major partners include Rotary on polio and the Red Cross and the 

Center for Disease Control on measles. We work on HIV/AIDS and reproductive 

health issues with UNAIDS and UNFPA, focused in particular on the ability of people to protect themselves and on women’s empowerment. We work on a range of environmental issues with UNDP, UNEP and UNESCO, and with a special focus on 

energy, security, and climate issues through our Energy Future Coalition. We also 

have a variety of initiatives on human rights and governance; for example we have 

worked to strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and 

recently helped the American Jewish Committee bring world leaders from the Jewish community together with UN leadership at the UN’s headquarters in New York. 

I cite the scope of our work because it provides a picture of the diversity of UN 

activities which are broadly supported by the population of the United States. With 

a team led by Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies, we do extensive research 

on public opinion. We know, for example, that over the last 50 years there has been 

steady support of the UN at about the 70 percent level among the American public. 

And it’s no wonder why when you consider just some of the recent ways the UN 

has helped advance U.S. interests:

• The UN helped legitimize and provide the technical support necessary to have 

democratic elections in Iraq in January;

• The UN coordinated the massive international response to the Southeast Asia 

tsunami, while its agencies on the ground prevented the outbreak of disease 

that would have killed more than the tsunami itself, and the UN is coordinating the longer-term work necessary to help the region recover economically;

• The UN Security Council, with U.S. and French leadership, put pressure on 

the Syrian government to force its withdrawal from Lebanon;

• The UN was instrumental in containing diseases like SARS and avian flu;

• UN peacekeeping missions have brought stability that has allowed some nations in the most brutal conflicts, such as Sierra Leone and East Timor, to 

rebuild and hold democratic elections—and paved the way for peacekeepers 

to leave these two places by the end of this year.

These activities support international and U.S. interests, and we know from the research that Americans believe the UN is an institution that helps to share the burden and perform important work that might not be practical or appropriate for the 

U.S. to take on alone. 

Yet we also know that from the time of the Iraq debate through the emergence 

of the Oil-for-Food issue, public support for the UN has dropped, and we face a challenge point in the U.S.-UN relationship. Americans do not always know or understand all the ways the UN works with the U.S. They believe the UN needs to be 

much more effective and are justifiably concerned about recent allegations of corruption in the UN ranks. 

This history of public support for the UN, and current concerns about its effectiveness, presents a good environment for UN reform. The American public is ready for 

changes, ready for a stronger UN, and is supportive of Administrative and Congressional efforts to help strengthen the UN. Before I comment on actual reforms, I 

162

want to make five points that will be essential to a constructive reform process that 

achieves meaningful and lasting results: 

1) We are at a unique moment to reform the UN. Recent events, from the Iraq 

debate to the recent stories surrounding the Oil-for-Food Program, have exposed 

weaknesses in the ways Member States work together to address global challenges, 

and in the way the UN manages and implements its work. Various experts are focusing on these issues, including the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Task Force on 

the UN, and are putting forward some creative ideas that should be seriously considered. The Secretary-General also put forward some bold recommendations in his 

recent report, ‘‘In Larger Freedom.’’ The UN is committed to change in a way I have 

not witnessed during my seven years at the UN Foundation and my previous years 

in the House and Senate and as Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs. In the 

past, the spotlight of the U.S. Congress has been important to applying the pressure 

needed to get reforms done, and I know this committee has taken on the issue of 

UN reform in a serious way. I hope the Congress will play a constructive role this 

year in encouraging U.S. leadership in the reform process underway at the UN, 

which brings me to my next point. 

2) U.S. leadership is critical. The U.S. Government must address reform comprehensively and aggressively. It must raise the priority issues, such as the overhaul of the Human Rights Commission, the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission, and management reform through all diplomatic means available. The U.S. 

Mission to the UN must provide Washington with regular updates on the discussion 

in New York. The UN’s Millennium Summit in September provides an historic opportunity for world leaders to come together to address these issues; we all should 

urge the President to attend and to reinforce the U.S. commitment to the UN and 

to UN reform. Reform is not an event; it is a long process that requires concerted 

U.S. leadership and diplomacy. When the U.S. pays attention, does its homework 

and builds the broader coalitions behind the changes it wants, the evidence is overwhelming that the UN responds. 

3) The United States government itself can and should be an example of reform.

• We should pay our dues to the UN in full and on time. The Committee will 

remember that under the conditions of the so-called ‘‘Stockman Amendment,’’ 

passed nearly 20 years ago, we are always a year late in paying our share 

of the bills. I don’t have to tell you that this tardiness is not only costly to 

everyone else in the UN, who have to cover the annual shortfall, but late payment does not reinforce our own demands for open, dependable and modern 

accounting at the UN.

• We also should beware of arguments that the threat of withholding of promised money provides leadership and leverage for change. Almost every one of 

the reforms that must be made at the UN requires significant diplomatic negotiation, which will be inhibited or even discouraged by a strategy of withholding funds. Change and reform require firm, consistent policy and strong, 

persistent diplomacy—threatening to withhold funds is an idea that sounds 

good if you say it fast enough, but in fact is most often cost-ineffective and 

counterproductive. The climate for reform at the UN is now so positive that 

the U.S. should be joining these forces and leading reform, not threatening 

and belittling the efforts. Leadership and vision is now the most needed ingredient for the UN’s reform process.

• Further, it is important to remember that some of the recommended reforms 

will cost money up front, while they save money over time. For example, the 

Peacebuilding Commission, the Democracy Fund, and the urgently needed 

personnel reforms all require venture reform capital up front, and all will result in needed progressive change and cost-saving over time.

• A final point on funding: the Congress should insist on much closer coordination with the Administration on peacekeeping commitments. I know from personal experience that the Administration often instructs its Permanent Representative at the UN to vote for Security Council peacekeeping initiatives, 

of which the U.S. is then obligated to pay 27% of the costs. But the Congress 

often doesn’t have timely information and consultation about these commitments, and as a result almost every year the Congress faces a major shortfall 

in peacekeeping obligations. This in turn complicates our ability to persuade 

other nations to join in UN reform efforts, since we ourselves are almost always well behind in paying bills for the very peacekeeping operations that we 

often initiated and must agree to through our vote on the Security Council. 

The Administration must work on getting quicker and better information 

about the decisions made in New York in the Security Council to those on 

163

Capitol Hill who are responsible for authorizing and appropriating the funding.

4) Reforms must be targeted to the right places. For example, some management 

reforms can be done by carefully working with the Secretary-General and the Secretariat. Others, like the urgently needed transformation of the Human Rights Commission and the strengthening of the Economic and Social Council, will have to go 

through the General Assembly. Many of the hardest issues, like the expansion of 

the Security Council, will be decided by Member States, not the Secretary-General 

and his leadership team. If we in the U.S. are serious about UN reform, we have 

to start framing the ideas and proposals, and we need to start working the process, 

at all levels and in all regions of the world. We need to build the coalitions necessary for success; again, when we have done this in the past we have succeeded. 

When we are faint in our resolve or timid in our leadership, change is much less 

likely to come about. 

5) Finally, the reform package must be robust and comprehensive. This is reflected 

by the work of the USIP Task Force and its five working groups, and in the recent 

report of the Secretary-General. We need a comprehensive package of reforms that 

takes into account the scope of the UN’s work and the interests of its many Member 

States. This includes management reforms, but also requires the strengthening of 

the UN’s capacity in human rights and in areas like peacekeeping and 

peacebuilding, and a new understanding of the linkages between development and 

security. 

I know this Committee has looked at the proposals of the High-Level Panel and 

those in the Secretary-General’s report, and I will comment on a few of the more 

high-profile issues:

• It is critical to address the failures of the UN Human Rights Commission, 

and to replace it with a Human Rights Council with performance criteria for 

membership.

• It is essential that the High Commissioner for Human Rights be strengthened. That office was created less than 15 years ago, with a lot of resistance. 

It is still a very threadbare office carried by the strength of individuals like 

its current leader, Louise Arbour, but with very little institutional capacity 

to help spur needed change around the world.

• Reform must also embrace the full inclusion of Israel as a normal Member 

State. Israel, as the only Member State that is not a member of one of the 

regional groups, has no chance of being elected to serve on main organs such 

as the Security Council or the Economic and Social Council, and we must 

work to rectify this anomaly.

• The Democracy Fund, proposed by President Bush and endorsed by the Secretary-General, is also an important vehicle for enhancing and supporting the 

spread of democracy around the world. The creation of a Democracy Caucus 

will also strengthen the UN and help to strengthen the U.S.’ hand in working 

through the UN system to advance democratic principles.

• The Peacebuilding Commission is also a good idea. Just as the U.S. government is currently reviewing its own capacity to respond to rebuilding wartorn societies through the creation of an office at the Department of State to 

coordinate this work, so should the UN be seeking a means to improve both 

its capacity and expert knowledge for specific countries. In peacekeeping, it 

is important to examine which parts of the Brahimi report recommendations 

remain to be completed. That was a very good piece of work with some outstanding recommendations still to be fulfilled. Also, the new report by former 

peacekeeper Prince Zeid of Jordan must be seriously considered by all Member States to address the devastating revelations about the conduct of certain 

UN peacekeepers in Congo and elsewhere.

Looking at management reform, I know Congress has focused much attention on 

transparency, oversight and accountability at the UN, and Mark Malloch Brown 

provided us today with a good overview of what is being done in those areas. There 

is clearly a need for a stronger oversight function. The UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is a relatively new office created with U.S. leadership in 1994. 

Now is the time to conduct a review of its performance, perhaps using someone like 

former GAO Director Chuck Bowsher or his European colleagues. The final report 

of the Independent Inquiry Committee on the Oil-for-Food Program comes out later 

this summer and will include more recommendations on how the UN can be 

strengthened, and the Secretary-General has stated his commitment to implementing each of these recommendations. 

164

In the area of personnel, the Secretariat and the Secretary-General need authority 

to move people. They have to have the authority to hire faster and they have to 

have the capability to fire faster. They need a buy-out program, which might take 

the form of a targeted program to transition out those whose skills are not as well 

suited for the UN we need today. The Secretary-General should also be given a 

means to hire young professionals and create a cadre of talented young workers who 

can lead the UN in the 21st century. The UN Foundation has supported the convening of such a group of young UN professionals, but this is only a first step in 

what is clearly a growing need at the UN. 

It is also important to empower the Deputy Secretary-General. That office needs 

more clearly defined authority over the strategic planning of UN operations. It is 

also terribly important to revamp the Department of Public Information. Every political institution (and the UN is one of those) needs a constituency, and needs to 

be able to explain what it’s doing to a constituency. This is the UN’s equivalent of 

public diplomacy and it represents the challenge facing Karen Hughes at the State 

Department. This function demands very careful attention as the UN attempts to 

explain its complicated missions to people around the world, where the high demand 

for information is met with difficult challenges in getting information to the intended audiences. 

Finally, I might suggest that the U.S. needs to rethink the way it works through 

the UN. We should pay increased attention—as this Committee has done—to the 

quality of the Foreign Service officers going to assignments in international organizations and the UN in particular, and how they are rewarded within our current 

State Department reward structure. As a general proposition, if you are a talented 

Foreign Service officer, you get rewarded if you are in one of the Regional Bureaus. 

However, you typically do not get rewarded if you work in international organizations or in refugees, human rights, environment, or narcotics. Yet it is this kind of 

assignment and this kind of work that must demand the best people. The promotional criteria in our Foreign Service system have to change if we are going to 

draw our best people into the UN and its very important work. 

And also, you will remember the Goldwater-Nichols legislation and how important 

that was in changing the interdisciplinary nature of senior officers in the military. 

A similar thing would be a very important addition to the way we run our State 

Department. 

The UN works far better when the U.S. pays attention and I think we all believe 

that an effective UN is in our interest. Thank you for the time and the attention 

you are focusing on this important topic. I look forward to answering your questions 

and to working with you as the reform process continues.

Mr. CHABOT [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator. We will 

now go to the questioning and I will defer to our esteemed Ranking 

Member to initiate the questioning, Mr. Lantos, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for your gracious gesture. First, let me commend Catherine Bertini 

for an outstanding record of public service. We appreciated what 

you did in your various important positions and we are delighted 

to have you here. 

And let me just say that in Senator Tim Wirth, we have one of 

the great public servants of the United States and I, for one, am 

profoundly sorry he is not part of our organization called the Congress of the United States. You can come back to either body, Tim, 

and you will add enormously to the quality of the institution. 

I started out several hours ago when we began this hearing by 

suggesting that the United Nations is a deriverative reality, that 

it is not an entity which is independent of the world it reflects. 

Since the world is profoundly flawed, it is flawed in such a manysplendored way. It is very important for all of us to realize that 

with the most brilliant proposals, the United Nations, once we get 

through with all of the reforms under the most ideal circumstances, 

will still be a very flawed organization. It will be a very flawed but 

desperately needed organization and I think it is extremely important that not only Members of our Committee but all Members of 

165

the House and the Senate have realistic expectations as to what an 

improved and reformed United Nations will look like. It will not 

look like a Swiss watch. It will look, hopefully, slightly less dysfunctional than it is at the moment. 

What I would like to ask Senator Wirth first, if I may, because 

you are one of those unique people who understands the details but 

who is also a strategic thinker, knowing the UN, knowing the realities of the international scene, knowing the Congress, when we get 

through with all of our deliberations and debates here, then we 

take it to the UN. What would be your prediction now of the outcome of Kofi Annan’s various recommendations, beginning with the 

Security Council? What will we end up with? 

Mr. WIRTH. Well, you are asking for us to present some kind of 

crystal ball and I am not sure we can do that with any accuracy. 

Mr. LANTOS. Yes. 

Mr. WIRTH. But one, I think that, as I said before, there is more 

momentum now for reform than I have ever seen. 

Mr. LANTOS. There is no question about that. 

Mr. WIRTH. I think that there is going to be a lot of change at 

the UN. I think that it is going to be extremely difficult with some 

of the constituency members of the UN for whom, as Catherine 

pointed out, so many of the slots, many of the programs or so on 

are looked at as their patrimony now. They deserve that and how 

do you break into that? There is no substitute for leadership, no 

substitute for diplomacy and to break into that. 

On the Security Council, I think that the U.S. is starting now to 

focus on what we want on Security Council reform is going to be 

the greatest determinant. And I do not think we have yet made 

clear what we do want to have happen. We pointed out that we 

would like to have Japan join. I was interested that Secretary 

Rice’s recent statements on Germany were leaked, and was that accurate or not? How serious are we going to be about engaging, say, 

the two giants that are not involved, India and Brazil? And then, 

what role will they have overall? My guess is that the U.S. would 

not give up any kind of veto power to others. It will maintain jealously that veto power and not let others have it. That is the lever 

that we have for really advancing our national interest. 

What will happen on the Human Rights Commission? I hope that 

the momentum is maintained. As I was talking to Congressman 

Smith, I think that we have to be careful what we ask for here as 

well, that what are the criteria for the Human Rights Commission 

going to be? I mean, I can think of some mischievous criteria, for 

example, that——

Mr. LANTOS. Would exclude us? 

Mr. WIRTH. Exactly, Congressman. You and I could figure out 

like any—you know, the smartest reformers up here can figure out 

how to bulluck up reform of the Congress. The smartest people at 

the UN are going to figure out how to bullock reform at the UN. 

So we are going to have to be very careful about this and I think 

Mark Lagon earlier was suggesting that. That is a big one. 

What happens on the Democracy Caucus and what happens in 

terms of the Democracy Fund, I think that will happen. I think 

those will occur. My guess is we will get some kind of a peace 

building commission, absolutely essential. Will that be merged with 

166

a reform of ECOSOT. Well, we have broken our picks on the reform 

of ECOSOT for 20 years and will probably, you know, have a problem doing that again. 

Anyway, those are some thoughts that I have. Again, it is so important that the United States Government and this Administration decide what it wants to do and lead. This takes extraordinary 

and patient diplomacy to get from here to there. You know what 

those endless discussions at the UN are about. You have to go and 

listen to all of that membership as if they are the most important 

people in the world. You have to sit and talk to them, you have to 

put your arm around them, you have to do everything you possibly 

can. That is the way you get something done, not dissimilar from 

here. You get a lot of things done by very patient one step in front 

of the other, bringing your colleagues together and 435 Members 

here. The U.S. has to lead. That is the most important ingredient. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. I now yield myself 5 minutes for asking questions. Ms. Bertini, in December 2003, 

the U.S. was instrumental in getting the General Assembly to give 

the Secretary-General authority to redeploy 50 posts. Why did the 

Secretary-General not act on that authority and what can you tell 

us about that? 

Ms. BERTINI. Well, I am no longer there, but my prediction is 

that he will act on it. I will tell you that the proposal, when it was 

made, was discussed with us in the Secretariat. We had hoped for 

a broader, in fact, a broader capacity to be able to move posts. 

Having the 50 posts became for people within the bureaucracy 

quite problematic to find a way to do it without disrupting too 

many programs. Ultimately, we did suggest to the Office of the Secretary-General a list of 80 some positions from which we were suggesting the 50 posts could come. Especially when these other priorities that the Secretary-General is talking about for Ethics Office, 

for Peace Building Commission, and for many of the other proposals that he has made, those posts certainly could be very useful. 

So I would expect that there would be some action, but I cannot 

guarantee. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I would ask either witness to respond 

to this question. There have been a number of proposals, a number 

of reforms that have been discussed during the course of this hearing. What do you see as the impediments to the various reforms 

that have been discussed today and what could be done about 

those? I invite either witness to testify. 

Ms. BERTINI. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, as the Senator said, the 

major obstacles will be to work with other governments, which is 

what the UN is about. But the proposals that require agreement 

of the General Assembly need a lot of massaging, need a lot of discussion, need a lot of sometimes compromise and, most importantly, leadership, American leadership in New York. Those are, I 

think, the biggest challenges. And they can be, I think, best done 

with a concerted policy of the U.S. Government and some flexibility 

to be able to work that through toward the objectives that the U.S. 

has, but in consultation and agreement with the others. Those are 

far more difficult than the ones that could be done under the management and authority of the Secretary-General. 

167

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I do not know if you want to add anything, Senator Wirth? 

Mr. WIRTH. No, I think Catherine is exactly right. I think as you 

look at reform, you have to understand that you are playing in 

three areas or you are focused on three areas. One is the Secretariat, where the Secretary-General can make those changes himself. Mark was addressing himself to those, Catherine has a lot of 

the ideas about that. 

The second is the Security Council. They started to get into very, 

very sensitive major power issues, balanced back and forth among 

the Perm 5. You have to bring all five of them into agreement and 

that is very hard to do. The Chinese have different views of many 

of these things, as we know, as do the Russians and the French. 

Now, any changes that touch on the Security Council have to get 

those five involved. That is very hard. And then you start to deal 

with the General Assembly and you are dealing, like walking out 

here on the Floor, you can walk out here on the Floor with the best 

idea in the world and you are going to take a lot of time before people decide that maybe that is a good idea or maybe it is not a good 

idea, with people coming from all over the world like they do from 

435 congressional districts, saying, ‘‘Hey, that is not a very good 

idea from my perspective.’’ It may look good in California but it 

looks terrible in Massachusetts. 

That is the problem you have with the General Assembly. So 

again, it is leadership and a very clear agenda. 

Ms. BERTINI. Mr. Chairman, might I add——

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, absolutely. 

Ms. BERTINI [continuing]. Just one example, is that the committees of the General Assembly are all committees of the whole. And 

it makes for very difficult agreement, a process to make agreements, because it ends up with so many people involved that there 

is a lot of micromanagement. 

It would be as if all the Members of Congress were Members of 

the House International Relations Committee, could come and go 

as they pleased, in and out with different ideas all the time. So one 

thing that I think should be looked at is the prospect of the General Assembly reforming itself and making the committees into 

small committees, just as Congress has or Parliaments have 

throughout the world. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Before my time runs out let me just ask 

finally what UN organizational or structural reform proposals do 

you think have the most merit? Would you, for example, support 

the elimination or restructuring of any particular UN offices, committees or organizations? 

Ms. BERTINI. I think if we move to voluntary funding of a lot of 

organizations, that essentially the governments will speak themselves about the usefulness of those organizations if that is how 

they are funded. But I also think that there should be a review, 

as the Secretary-General has proposed, of all of the UN agencies, 

of their mandates, of their functions, and whether or not they are 

producing what it is that they have set out to do. 

Mr. CHABOT. Senator Wirth, anything? 

Mr. WIRTH. I would say that there is obviously not complete 

agreement about the idea of voluntary funding. There will be a lot 

168

of relatively unpopular programs that will have a much more difficult time, that are very important, but will governments support 

them? Everybody, I think, is going to support the World Food Program and voluntary funding. Everybody will support the Refugee 

Program and voluntary funding. But will everybody support, say, 

you know, the Office of Oversight Services? Will everybody want to 

support the office that does all of the translation and so on? 

I think we have to be very careful in thinking about voluntary 

funding. There will be some that will be easy to fund, some that 

are not easy to fund. I think more likely is to make sure that we 

in the United States start out with a commitment to full funding 

of what we have agreed to do. You know, that is the first and most 

important thing that we ought to be doing in terms of thinking 

about funding reforms. Let us take a look at our own backyard 

first. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, my time has expired. The gentleman 

from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you and let me just note that listening to 

Mr. Lantos, I think he sums it up very eloquently when he talks 

about how the United Nations is a reflection of the imperfect member states. I see that as the core of the problem and I agree with 

you, Senator. I think this is a propitious moment in terms of the 

ability to make significant changes. But I think we all have to recognize that this will never be a perfect institution, much like the 

U.S. Congress or at least the U.S. Senate. I think we have to have 

reasonable expectations. And I think when we weigh the benefits 

and counter that with some of the frustrations that are shared by 

everybody, it is clear that the United Nations plays a significant 

role in terms of a place to go to ensure the potentials of stability 

and the potential for some good things happening in terms of planet Mother Earth, if you will. 

I have been thinking myself. I serve as Ranking Member on a 

Subcommittee with Dana Rohrabacher and we have been very 

much involved in the issue surrounding the UN. I would like to 

take you up on the idea of going to New York, because it is one 

that I have been entertaining. We have been to New York several 

times now where we had a chance, and I want to acknowledge, congratulate you on your retirement and acknowledge the great work 

that you have done. 

Ms. BERTINI. Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But maybe utilizing you, Senator, and the UN 

Association as an interlocutor, if you will, for lack of a better word, 

to arrange a meeting with other member states, representatives 

from other member states, to have a discussion about these issues. 

I think part of the problem is that other nations, even democracies 

that are parliamentary democracies, really do not appreciate the 

role of the United States Congress in our democratic system and 

the concerns that Members have. I think that dialogue would be 

very, very important. 

So if you think it is a good idea, you can contact me or Congressman Lantos or Chairman Hyde or Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. WIRTH. Let me just say for the record, we would be delighted 

to help to facilitate that in any way. I think that just looking back 

at the last 5 years when I mentioned Secretary Albright going to 

169

North Carolina and holding hands with Jesse Helms, I mean, that 

was a great picture. But also, you know, it was a great respect 

going back and forth between the two. I think that Senator Helms 

then had a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 

the UN. It was a great idea and everybody sort of seized this back 

and forth. And we would be happy to help to facilitate that with 

the leadership of the Committee or Subcommittee, and let us be in 

touch about that. I think it is a very good idea. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You made a reference to public diplomacy. I am 

very concerned about the magnitude of anti-Americanism that exists today in this world and it is not restricted to any particular 

geographic area. One only has to look at the different polling data. 

Zogby did a poll in Latin America of the economic elite. You know, 

not the Chevistas or Fidel Castro, the Shining Path, or anyone that 

would, that might be more expressive in terms of their view of 

America. But among the economic elite, 87 percent had a negative 

opinion of this White House. That, I suggest, is very dangerous, but 

part of it—and you talk about cleaning up ourselves—is to acknowledge our own role. It was not until today that I had at least 

an acknowledgement from a representative of this Administration 

that we have to look at ourselves. I think by saying we have some 

issues that we have to look at in terms of our relationships with 

the UN. I think that sends a very positive message out there and 

creates, if you will, some positive reaction among other nations. 

Any comment? 

Mr. WIRTH. Humility is one of diplomacy’s greatest assets, and 

we can show a great deal of that from time to time. 

Just a footnote here. I had the privilege of representing the 

United States Government on a number of very significant international negotiations in the early 1990s and it was thrilling, Congressman, to walk into a difficult negotiation and it would sort of 

stop and people would say, ‘‘Well, what does the United States 

Government want to do? What is your position?’’

We had a moral force and we had a technical capability and we 

had a diplomatic capacity that was absolutely unrivaled. That can 

be recovered once again with Karen Hughes coming into the State 

Department. This is a very positive sign of the sense of the size of 

our problem. You know, you bring in one of your key people to do 

it. She is sort of like, remember Edward R. Murrow was the head 

of USIA in the early days. He was a major figure. I think Karen 

Hughes is a major figure. She will be in at the policy and can really 

help to work on that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I agree with that and I think, again, our 

strength is the ability to acknowledge when we have made mistakes and do something about them. That is what sets this country 

apart. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt. Mr. 

Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Senator and Ms. Bertini. I 

just want to make it very clear that I think the world is a much 

better place because of the United Nations. I think most of us 

agree that it would be kind of difficult without it. Of course, we 

also realize that there are certainly many problems that go along 

with it and the whole challenges ahead of us. 

170

I see where the U.S. has continually reduced its assessment. 

Originally, I think the U.S. probably paid about 50 percent of the 

first years of the establishment of the UN and it has been reduced 

down to 32 percent. I see some of the 28, 25 percent and goals of 

20 percent. How do you feel with the increasing problems with the 

U.S. abdicating a lower assessment? Are there ways that the other 

parts of the world could adequately pick up the shortfall or will the 

UN be limited with fewer resources? 

Mr. WIRTH. I think, Congressman, that you are addressing an 

issue that you have been deeply involved with, and how do we address and move on that? I think obviously the UN has a role in 

that, but more as a catalyst and a cheerleader. It certainly does not 

have the resources to address it. 

The World Bank has got some resources, but not a lot. I think 

what we have to do is really look at some very imaginative ways 

of thinking about different kinds of finance. I know you are very 

familiar with Tony Blair’s proposal, the International Finance Facility ideas, the One Campaign, all items that you and the Black 

Caucus, I know, have been very involved with and it is extremely 

important that we keep that pressure up. 

It may be that we are at a situation, as we are with UN reform, 

that there are now emerging a number of important political constituencies in the United States, ones that are more traditional 

constituencies of interaction than non-governmental communities 

and so on. We may see a different political constituency than we 

saw when Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel were here last week, 

working with many people on the Hill. It may be that there is a 

faith-based constituency in the United States that now can be 

much more aggressively organized, with deep concerns for the same 

things that we are talking about here. It may not have been as 

much involved in the political aspects of this to try to get an increase in appropriations, to try to get the U.S. to look more creatively at the new international financial instruments. 

I think we have a real opportunity now. The Millennium Development goals give a framework that I think most of the world has 

agreed with. We at the UN Foundation are deeply committed to 

this. We think that this is a special time. If we miss this window, 

then I think we are really in a lot of trouble for our children and 

grandchildren down the line. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will just ask 

one very simple question. But I think it is a question that needs 

to be asked to give our entire hearing an air of realism. 

There has been a tremendous amount of discussion about the 

role of Kofi Annan and some Members of the United States Congress have called for his resignation. I think we would duck a very 

significant and very substantive issue if we did not deal with it. 

So before I raise the question, let me state my own view. As 

other heads of state or heads of organizations, clearly the Secretary-General has made mistakes. But I think it would be singularly unfortunate if this call for his resignation would have the 

slightest chance of succeeding. On balance, the Secretary-General 

171

has done an outstanding job. He is a unique public servant of global acceptance. His qualifications and his qualities are uniquely appropriate for leading a complex multi-national, multi-ethnic organization. And I, for one, would like to state for the record that I will 

oppose with all my might any attempt to replace Kofi Annan. I 

would be grateful if Ms. Bertini and Senator Wirth would comment 

on the issue of the desirability of Kofi Annan completing his term. 

Ms. BERTINI. Well, it certainly is very desirable for the SecretaryGeneral to complete his term. I talked to some of your colleagues 

last year when they started talking about these matters to try to 

say this does not make any sense. And where are you going with 

this and why? Because his leadership is particularly important to 

the UN at a very difficult time and particularly important now that 

reform is such a high item on the agenda. I am not talking necessarily about the management reform but the leadership in reform 

worldwide with the Heads of State Summit coming up in September, which is the one big opportunity to make a huge difference 

for the world. And to think about a vacuum in leadership is, I 

think, terrible. 

Mr. LANTOS. Senator Wirth? 

Mr. WIRTH. I think Ms. Bertini has it just right. It depends on 

what people want politically. You know, if there is a desire to sort 

of get a scalp on the wall and that is going to be an advancement 

for somebody, that is one goal, you know, and that is an understandable political goal. I think it is a very short-sighted goal. I do 

not think it accomplishes what most people want, which is a broad 

set of changes at the United Nations. I think we are at a time now 

where the Secretary-General leading this fray for reform, with everybody else kind of coming in to an overall strategy, if we want 

to get reform and change at the UN, we want to continue this flow 

and continue this pattern and continue this effort. Having a vacuum at the top would have the UN grind to a halt like any other 

institution when you get to a lame duck status. It happens in this 

Government. 

You watch what happens when a new President or a President 

gets elected. There is a lame duck time, nobody does anything, nobody makes any commitments. The same thing would happen at 

the UN. It happens before a new Secretary-General comes in, 

things come to a halt. The whole reform thing will grind to a halt 

and then we have to start all over again in 2007, wait for somebody 

else to come in. You get to 2008, you know, and then everybody 

here will be saying, ‘‘Hey, wait a minute, what happened? Why did 

these things not occur? Well, wait a minute. Who is over here calling for this kind of short-term political gain?’’ So I think you go to 

very different windows. If you want a short term political gain, 

maybe it sounds good if you say it fast enough, let us get rid of 

the Secretary-General. But the long-term goal of strengthening this 

indispensable institution is the one I think we have to keep our eye 

on. And that means the Secretary-General ought to stay there and 

we ought to be supporting him in every way we can. 

Mr. LANTOS. So I got two votes from that side of the table. Thank 

you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. We want to thank 

Ms. Bertini and, of course, Senator Wirth. It is always a pleasure 

172

to be in your company. But we have Mr. Rohrabacher who wanted 

to ask a question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just one question. Senator, you are well 

known for opposing the withholding of our funds from the UN in 

order to use that as leverage to gain reforms. Is that not just giving 

away all the leverage you have with someone who will not act? I 

mean, do people not act when you have leverage? Did we not bring 

about UNESCO’s reform by withholding our funds from UNESCO 

for a number of years? 

Mr. WIRTH. Well, we withdrew from UNESCO. We decided we 

did not like what was going on at UNESCO. That was a very specific and targeted effort. Now, you know, were the U.S. to decide 

that it wanted to withhold funds from other items, you know, to 

say let us withhold our funds from the Human Rights Commission 

until it changes, those are choices that you all can make in the appropriation process. 

I think the lesson overall is a more profound one and a more 

complicated one. If we look at the time when we withheld funds before, Congressman, in the 1990s, and we would say the withholding 

of funds accomplished certain goals. Well, actually, it made it much 

harder for the U.S. to reach its broader goal, which was a reduction 

in our dues, which was a reduction in our share of peacekeeping. 

That was the central set of issues that we were trying to pursue 

at that time. 

It was very, very hard to get done because other countries were 

looking at us and saying, ‘‘Hey, you are the biggest scofflaw in the 

world. You owe more than $1 billion dues.’’ You have peacekeeping 

well over $1 billion in arrears and it was extremely difficult. It took 

the jujitsu of Helms-Biden and then just endless amounts of diplomacy at the UN to bring people on board and then finally to bridge 

this gap. It took as the final piece of this, I will say with some 

pride, a final private donation by Mr. Turner to bridge this gap. We 

had gotten in such trouble. You know, we had to bridge the gap 

with a $31 million private donation from him to the United States 

Treasury to allow us to get caught up. 

Now that is not a very sound way of doing business. It is a much 

sounder way of doing business, let us pay our dues in full, let us 

pay them on time, let us get rid of the Stockman Amendment, let 

us not be a scofflaw anymore. Let us be a good, upstanding citizen 

and with our own backyard cleaned up, then let us go and try to 

help the UN make the changes that ought to be made. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And you think they will listen to us more——

Mr. WIRTH. Oh, absolutely they will. Of course they will. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have to say it is not my experience as a 

human being, giving up your leverage in order to get somebody to 

listen to you. It is usually when you have a little bit of pressure 

that you can apply by saying, I am willing to withhold my whatever, that they begin to really listen to you. 

But that may be just a difference in view. I know when you were 

negotiating with various people about what you should do on certain bills, you never really, you were negotiating with them in good 

faith even though they had leverage or did not have leverage on 

you. But that is not the way I found it here in Congress. 

173

Mr. WIRTH. Congressman, I would disagree with that. I always 

thought that the best leverage that you had was the leverage of the 

clarity of the case that you were making, the quality of the arguments that you made and the integrity of the way in which you approached it and that was probably the most important kind of leverage that you have in any kind of a negotiation. At least I would 

hope that that is the way it is. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So when you were going into Conference 

Committee, you just naturally conceded the other position? 

Mr. WIRTH. Oh, never. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. All right, there you go. 

Mr. WIRTH. When I was in the House, our arguments were always a lot more virtuous. I noticed that the virtue came on the 

Senate side pretty soon thereafter. [Laughter.] 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. They won it on the merits of the argument. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right, thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher and Ms. 

Bertini. I know you wanted to make some closing statements. 

Ms. BERTINI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Two things 

I would like to say. One is just to circle back to Mr. Payne’s question about the levels of assessment, if I understood it correctly, and 

the potential of other countries taking up any slack if the U.S. were 

to further decrease. 

I would be one person who would hope the U.S. would not insist 

on going higher than it already pays, the 22 percent. There have 

been a lot of references to the 22 percent the U.S. pays. I think 

many people do not know, for instance, that Japan pays 19.5 percent and it is a continuing problem for them that they pay this 

much and, for instance, are not on the Security Council unless they 

happen to be, you know, elected for a term, because when so many 

decisions are made for peacekeeping, for instance, they feel like 

they are taxed without representation. 

And so, whatever the U.S. does, there are then other countries 

that would react in different ways. And there is a fair amount of 

concern on their part, at least, the second largest payer, almost as 

much as the U.S., about their levels and their involvement. 

Mr. PAYNE. Right, I just wanted to mention that——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE [continuing]. Yes, it is actually based, almost, on the 

gross domestic product. And actually, we are really paying less 

than our world GDP. I mean, it is very clear that we are underpaying if you take GDP, even as opposed to the EU together, the 

assessment is also—we are really. And it would be great if you 

could just reduce your income tax. I would love that. Let us just 

keep reducing income tax, because we do not like to pay taxes, but 

it is not fair and even the way our taxes are going today it is not 

fair. Because the wealthy are getting the breaks and the poor people are not. So I would hope, too, that we would stop this 

ratcheting down, because we are really not fulfilling our true responsibility. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Thank you so much 

and thank you, Ms. Bertini and Senator Wirth for your testimony 

today. It is a pleasure to have you with us. 

174

The Chair has been informed that Mr. Natan Sharansky is available. So without objection, we will permit him to testify for a few 

moments. Mr. Sharansky, if you could come to the witness table. 

And as all of us know, Mr. Sharansky, along with Mr. Ron Dermer, 

has written a thought-provoking book called The Case for Democracy, where he debunks three myths. The first is that freedom and 

democracy are not for everyone. Second, that an stable dictatorship 

is better than an unstable democracy, and the third is that even 

if the first two are true, it is not up to the free world to even think 

of imposing its will upon others. He has held many positions in the 

State of Israel, including head of Diaspora Affairs. He has resigned 

those responsibilities and he has a lot to say about the issue before 

us today, which is reform of the United Nations and will address 

the issue of the anti-Israel bias as part of the problem of the institution. 

We welcome you, Mr. Sharansky as a witness before this very 

important topic that we will be presenting before the body, significant legislation dealing with reform of the United Nations. And you 

certainly have a lot of experience dealing with that body. So we 

welcome you today. 

STATEMENT OF NATAN SHARANSKY, AUTHOR, ‘‘THE CASE FOR 

DEMOCRACY’’

Mr. SHARANSKY. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. And thank you for 

such a great summary of my book. In three phrases you have said 

everything that is written there. And thank you for giving me this 

opportunity. I know it was not planned. In fact, I was going 

through the corridor and suddenly was given this invitation. It is 

an invitation which I cannot refuse, because the topic is very important and it is very dear to my heart, as a former human rights 

activist in the Soviet Union and as an Israeli citizen. 

It is clear that the great aim of the United Nations was at least 

to strengthen peace and security in the world. And there is no way 

to strengthen security in the world without strengthening freedom 

and democracy in the world. Here, unfortunately, we often have a 

situation when the representatives of the countries or the representatives of the governments who do not permit their own people to vote, who do not permit their own people to express their 

opinion, are constantly voting in condemnation of a democratic 

country like Israel, condemning them, accusing them and violating 

human rights. 

And this hypocrisy shows the heart of the problem of the United 

Nations. The United Nations, by its nature, is the conscience which 

can pull freedom for their citizens and of the countries which do 

not give any freedom. Perhaps not countries, but regimes, which do 

not give any freedom to their citizens. 

When a country like Libya is the Chairman of the Committee on 

Human Rights, or when a country like Syria has a seat on the Security Council, it is clear what kind of decisions can be produced. 

I was only recently visiting the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, just when the next 6 weeks of sessions were beginning. Every 

year there are 6 weeks of sessions of the Committee on Human 

Rights. And I found out that equation of millions of people killed 

in Sudan is not on the agenda, and I was explained why there is 

175

an agreement between different countries why this issue will not 

be raised. 

The problem with human rights in Chechnya with 400,000 city 

grossly becoming a ghost city will not be on the agenda because 

there is an agreement between Arab countries and Russia that 

Arab countries are not supporting the resolution and anti-Semitism. Russia is not supporting the resolution on anti-Semitism and 

Arab countries are not supporting the idea of bringing the issue of 

Chechnya under discussion. 

And so then we find out the only equation on which Members of 

Committee on Human Rights can agree is anti-terrorist events in 

Israel and that is the only problem of human rights which is discussed week after week. And the countries which are directly or indirectly supporting ethnic cleansing in Africa and other places are 

voting and condemning Israel as a major violator of human rights, 

and you can see a proportional station on Israel as a major violator 

of human rights is regularly accused by United Nations more than 

all dictators in the room. All dictators who do not permit their people to vote or to speak, who are responsible for killing of millions 

of people are not condemned by United Nations in the way democratic countries are condemned. 

So I believe, by the way, I must be clear, I do not think that 

Israel should be beyond the criticism. Of course, Israel is a democratic country, can exist only from inside, outside, as every member 

of the United Nations should be under criticism. But without moral 

clarity, without moral clarity which presents the difference between fear societies and free societies, without clear policy of supporting more and more freedom everywhere in every country who 

is a member of the United Nations, it will be very difficult for the 

United Nations to fulfill their mission of strengthening security 

and peace in the world. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Sharansky, and we 

hope that the United Nations soon achieves that moral clarity so 

that they can see the difference between free nations and fear nations. Thank you so much, Mr. Sharansky, for your leadership on 

the human rights field. 

Mr. SHARANSKY. Thank you very much. Thank you for giving me 

this opportunity. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The Committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ